-
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 -
S. Sankara Varman Vs. State
The Court held that Sections 33(5) and 36(1) of the POCSO Act mandate that a child survivor ought not to be called repeatedly to testify in the Court. While Section 311 of the CrPC gives power to the Court to recall any witness to serve the cause of justice, but the said section is subject…
Pincites Para 19, 23; Page 3,4 Read case : S. Sankara Varman Vs. State -
Ashok Singh Kandari v. State of Uttarakhand
A conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the child survivor and there is no need for corroboration unless there exist compelling reasons for the same. Further, minor discrepancies in the child survivor’s statement will not discredit an otherwise reliable prosecution case.
Pincites Para 27; Page 4 Read case : Ashok Singh Kandari v. State of Uttarakhand -
Pastor Muniyandi @ Ramesh v. State
The presumption clause of Section 29 POCSO is applicable to both the offender and the abettor of the offence. When foundational facts have been established, the accused must discharge the reverse burden cast by Sections 29 and 30 POCSO.
Pincites Para 16-17; Page 8 Read case : Pastor Muniyandi @ Ramesh v. State
All cases
Every case in the repository, across all categories.