-
Hanumantha Mogaveera v. State of Karnataka
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 Read case : Hanumantha Mogaveera v. State of Karnataka -
Sanjay vs. State of Haryana
Once a child witness, if found competent to depose to the facts and reliable one such evidence could be the basis of conviction. In other words even in the absence of oath, the evidence of a child witness can be considered under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provided that such witness is…
Pincites Para 8, 10, 18, 19, 21-24; Page 3, 8, 10 Read case : Sanjay vs. State of Haryana -
Lalmalsom Kaipeng v. The State of Tripura
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 Read case : Lalmalsom Kaipeng v. The State of Tripura
All cases
Every case in the repository, across all categories.