Showing 1–2 of 2 cases

High Court of Uttarakhand High Court of Karnataka

  1. High Court of Karnataka 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 12300

    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

  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