-
Hanumantha Mogaveera v. State of Karnataka
The court held that the child’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC in the course of investigation cannot be considered as substantive evidence under Section 35 of the POCSO Act. The court further held that the requirement of expeditious recording of a child victim’s evidence under Section 35 of the POCSO Act is…
Pincites Para 21-27, 41- 44, 49, 50, 56-61 Read case : Hanumantha Mogaveera v. State of Karnataka -
Atul Gorakhnath Ambale v. State of Maharashtra
The court took note of the problem of long delays in recording testimonies of child survivors and the adverse effects it has on the child and the prosecution’s case. In light of these observations, the court framed and issued guidelines to be followed to ensure expeditious recording of testimonies of child survivors. The court stressed…
Pincites Para 11 - 15; Page 2 - 5 Read case : Atul Gorakhnath Ambale v. State of Maharashtra -
Vitthal Rajendra Jogade v. State of Maharashtra
Absence of any injuries on the person of the child survivor might not by itself discredit the statement of the child survivor and in such a situation the non-production of a medical report would not be of much consequence if the other evidence was believable. Corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction…
Pincites Para 12; Page 4 Read case : Vitthal Rajendra Jogade v. State of Maharashtra -
Imran Shabbir Gauri Vs. State of Maharashtra
The court held that the concerned authorities of the State Government or Central Government will take some initiative in incorporating certain amendments under relevant laws so as to give status to Section 164 statement as that of examination-in-chief in all eventualities. The trauma that a victim has to undergo, after the incident does not stop…
Pincites Para 48; Page 13, 14 Read case : Imran Shabbir Gauri Vs. State of Maharashtra
All cases
Every case in the repository, across all categories.