-
Lalsuonglien and Ors. v. State of Manipur
The child may have a parent or other trusted person present at the time of testifying and can call for assistance from an interpreter, special educator, or other professional while giving evidence. Further, the Court held that the child is not to be called repeatedly to testify in Court and may testify through a video…
Pincites Para 2, 15, 17, 19, 22; Page 1, 3, 4 Read case : Lalsuonglien and Ors. v. State of Manipur -
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 -
Justin v. Union of India and Ors.
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 Read case : Justin v. Union of India and Ors.
All cases
Every case in the repository, across all categories.