Repository

Case Repository

1–4 of 4 cases
  1. High Court of Delhi 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10301

    Court on its Own Motion v. State

    Ratio

    The court held that a statement under the POCSO Act can be made only to a police officer or magistrate. Counsellors and NGOs can merely play a facilitative role and cannot take a statement from the child. Further, the court clarified that the notes of the counsellor or the expert are confidential and cannot be…

    Pincites

    Para 6-8, 10, 12, 14-17, 19-21, 77-78, 87-89, 93-94

  2. High Court of Delhi 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1952

    State v. Sujeet Kumar

    Ratio

    The court interpreted Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“IEA”) in reference to POCSO cases and held that evidence of child survivors cannot be rejected per se but merits close scrutiny by the court as a rule of prudence. The court further discussed the various aspects of determining the competence of child survivor,…

    Pincites

    Para 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50-52, 57, 58

  3. High Court of Karnataka 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 12300

    Hanumantha Mogaveera v. State of Karnataka

    Ratio

    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

  4. High Court of Delhi Crl M.C. 1615 of 2020

    Vikas Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

    Ratio

    Applications for recalling a child survivor under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) are subject to Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act on the principle of generalia specialibus non-derogant. The conflicting rights of the accused and the survivor have to be balanced when considering such an application.

    Pincites

    Para 25; Page 17