Repository

Case Repository

1–4 of 4 cases
  1. 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

  2. High Court of Uttarakhand 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 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 Tripura at Agartala Crl. A (J) 34 of 2019

    Lalmalsom Kaipeng v. The State of Tripura

    Ratio

    The duty to rebut the presumption under Section 29 POCSO arising only after the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the foundational facts.The burden to rebut the presumption can be discharged by the accused through effective cross-examination, or by adducing defence evidence or by the accused himself tendering oral evidence. The presumption and the duty to…

    Pincites

    Para 27-33; Page 5, 6 & 7