Repository

Case Repository

1–3 of 3 cases
  1. High Court of Manipur Crl. Petn. No. 7 of 2019 [2019 SCC OnLine Mani 164]

    Lalsuonglien and Ors. v. State of Manipur

    Ratio

    Provisions of the POCSO reiterated by the court: 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 child is not to be called repeatedly to testify in Court and may…

    Pincites

    Para 2, 15, 17, 19, 22; Page 1, 3, 4

  2. High Court of Uttarakhand Criminal Jail Appeal No. 08 of 2018 [2022 SCC OnLine Utt 400]

    Ashok Singh Kandari v. State of Uttarakhand

    Ratio

    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

  3. High Court of Kerala WA No. 1651 of 2020 [MANU/KE/3811/2021]

    Justin v. Union of India and Ors.

    Ratio

    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