Repository

Case Repository

1–4 of 4 cases
  1. High Court of Karnataka 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 12300

    Hanumantha Mogaveera v. State of Karnataka

    Ratio

    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

  2. High Court of Madras 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 5681

    S. Sankara Varman Vs. State

    Ratio

    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

  3. 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

    Ratio

    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

  4. High Court of Kerala WA No. 1651 of 2020

    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