-
Attorney General of India and Ors. v. Satish and Ors.
While sexual intent under S. 8 POCSO is a question of fact, the Court is entitled to raise the presumption under S. 30 POCSO with regard to the culpable state of mind of the accused when the court is satisfied with the existence of a fact beyond reasonable doubt.
Pincites Para 36-37, 42; Page 15, 17 Read case : Attorney General of India and Ors. v. Satish and Ors. -
Smruti Tukaram Badade V. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
The Court recognised the need and importance of setting up facilities that create a safe environment for recording the evidence of vulnerable witnesses. It provided directions for the setting up of centres for vulnerable witnesses (including minors). It was clarified that the definition of “vulnerable witness” contained in Clause 3(a) of the ‘Guidelines for Recording…
Pincites Para 5; Pages 2, 3 Read case : Smruti Tukaram Badade V. State of Maharashtra & Anr. -
Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Where foundational facts have been established, the presumption under section 29 POCSO becomes operational and the accused is bound to rebut the presumption.
Pincites Para 32; Page 39 & 40. Read case : Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh -
Eera Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors.
The Court held that the sanguine purpose is to safeguard the interest and well-being of the children at every stage of the judicial proceeding. It should provide for a child-friendly procedure and the atmosphere as commanded by the provisions of the POSCO Act has to be congenial. The protection of the dignity of the child…
Pincites Para 23; Page 23 Read case : Eera Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors. -
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. -
In Re Children in Street Situation
The Court recognized the difficulties of survivors of trafficking with respect to travelling long distances for the purpose of giving evidence in trial courts, especially during the COVID-19 Pandemic and adopted a Standard Operating Procedure (‘SOP’) for the effective recording of the child’s testimony through video conference. The SOP suggested that testimony of children, who…
Pincites Para 4 and 9; Page 4, 5 and 7 Read case : In Re Children in Street Situation -
Sakshi v Union of India
The Supreme Court issued directions for vulnerable witnesses in cases of sexual assault. The guidelines state that in holding a trial in the case of child sex abuse or rape: (i) a screen or some such arrangements may be made where the victim or witnesses do not see the body or face of the accused;…
Pincites Para 34; Page 28 Read case : Sakshi v Union of India -
State of Maharashtra v Bandu @ Daulat
The court reiterated the guidelines laid down in Sakshi v Union of India and mandated their implementation by January 2018. It emphasized the necessity of creating a conducive environment for vulnerable witnesses to provide their statements with special guidelines for child survivors of sexual abuse. It directed that special centres for the examination of vulnerable…
Pincites Para 11, 12; Page 3, 4 Read case : State of Maharashtra v Bandu @ Daulat -
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Manga Singh
Corroboration is not a sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. If the evidence of the survivor does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the 'probabilities factor' does not render it unworthy of credence. As a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from medical evidence. However, in…
Pincites Para 11 and 12; Page 2-3 Read case : State of Himachal Pradesh v. Manga Singh -
Mukesh v. State of NCT of Delhi
Conviction for rape can be based on the sole testimony of the survivor and the same does not require corroboration, provided that the testimony is natural and trustworthy. The Court must look at the broad probabilities, not discard the testimony due to minor contradictions which are not substantial in character given that they are usually…
Pincites Para 383-393; Page 200-205 Read case : Mukesh v. State of NCT of Delhi
All cases
Every case in the repository, across all categories.