-
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 -
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.