-
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 -
Lalsuonglien and Ors. v. State of Manipur
The child may have a parent or other trusted person present at the time of testifying and can call for assistance from an interpreter, special educator, or other professional while giving evidence. Further, the Court held that the child is not to be called repeatedly to testify in Court and may testify through a video…
Pincites Para 2, 15, 17, 19, 22; Page 1, 3, 4 Read case : Lalsuonglien and Ors. v. State of Manipur -
Justin v. Union of India and Ors.
Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act are held to be Constitutional and they do not violate the Fundamental Rights, nor are they contrary to the basic criminal Principles. Presumption under Sections 29 and 30 POCSO would become operational only after the prosecution has established the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt.
Pincites Para 21-31, 35; Page 15-18 Read case : Justin v. Union of India and Ors.
All cases
Every case in the repository, across all categories.