Showing 1–5 of 5 cases

High Court of Madras High Court of Calcutta High Court of Uttarakhand

  1. High Court of Madras 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 5681

    S. Sankara Varman Vs. State

    The Court held that Sections 33(5) and 36(1) of the POCSO Act mandate that a child survivor ought not to be called repeatedly to testify in the Court. While Section 311 of the CrPC gives power to the Court to recall any witness to serve the cause of justice, but the said section is subject…

    Pincites  Para 19, 23; Page 3,4 Read case : S. Sankara Varman Vs. State

  2. High Court of Uttarakhand 2022 SCC OnLine Utt 400

    Ashok Singh Kandari v. State of Uttarakhand

    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 Read case : Ashok Singh Kandari v. State of Uttarakhand

  3. High Court of Calcutta 2022 Cri LJ 439

    Raju Roy vs. State of West Bengal

    Testimony of a child can only be relied on if it is intelligible. A testimony is intelligible based on (a) the ability to understand questions put to the witness and (b) give answers to those questions that can be understood. If evidence is in the favour of the survivor, mere lapses in the survivor's statement…

    Pincites  Para 29-31, 34-37, 39-41, 42-44, 50, 61, 72-75; Page 5-8, 11, 14 Read case : Raju Roy vs. State of West Bengal

  4. High Court of Madras Crl. A. Nos. 130 of 2018, 190, 506 of 2019 and Crl. M. P. No. 3169 of 2018 in Crl. A. No. 130 of 2018

    Pastor Muniyandi @ Ramesh v. State

    The presumption clause of Section 29 POCSO is applicable to both the offender and the abettor of the offence. When foundational facts have been established, the accused must discharge the reverse burden cast by Sections 29 and 30 POCSO.

    Pincites  Para 16-17; Page 8 Read case : Pastor Muniyandi @ Ramesh v. State

  5. High Court of Calcutta C.R.A. No. 458 of 2018 and IA No. CRAN 2 of 2020

    Ranjit Rajbanshi v. The State of West Bengal and Ors.

    When the prosecution fails to establish a strong preponderance of probability sufficient to raise a presumption under Section 29 POCSO, the negative burden to prove their innocence will not shift to the accused if the defence effectively discredits the prosecution's case, the accused will be discharged of their onus under Section 29 POCSO.

    Pincites  Para 43, 50, 52, 53; Page 5, 6, 7 Read case : Ranjit Rajbanshi v. The State of West Bengal and Ors.