-
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 -
Vijay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Convictions can be sustained on the sole testimony of the child survivor when found cogent and reliable, and corroboration is not necessary.The testimony of the child survivor of a sex related offence must be given the same evidentiary value as that to an injured person in cases of physical violence.
Pincites Para 13, 18; Page 4, 5 Read case : Vijay Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh -
Sanjay vs. State of Haryana
Once a child witness, if found competent to depose to the facts and reliable one such evidence could be the basis of conviction. In other words even in the absence of oath, the evidence of a child witness can be considered under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provided that such witness is…
Pincites Para 8, 10, 18, 19, 21-24; Page 3, 8, 10 Read case : Sanjay vs. State of Haryana
All cases
Every case in the repository, across all categories.