-
Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh
RatioWhere foundational facts have been established, the presumption under section 29 POCSO becomes operational and the accused is bound to rebut the presumption.
PincitesPara 32; Page 39 & 40.
-
Atul Gorakhnath Ambale v. State of Maharashtra
RatioThe court took note of the problem of long delays in recording testimonies of child survivors and the adverse effects it has on the child and the prosecution’s case. In light of these observations, the court framed and issued guidelines to be followed to ensure expeditious recording of testimonies of child survivors. The court stressed…
PincitesPara 11 - 15; Page 2 - 5
-
Ranjit Rajbanshi v. The State of West Bengal and Ors.
RatioWhen the prosecution fails to establish a strong preponderance of probability sufficient to raise a presumption under Section 29 POCSO, the negative burden to prove their innocence will not shift to the accused if the defence effectively discredits the prosecution's case, the accused will be discharged of their onus under Section 29 POCSO.
PincitesPara 43, 50, 52, 53; Page 5, 6, 7
-
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Manga Singh
RatioCorroboration is not a sine qua non for conviction in a rape case. If the evidence of the survivor does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the 'probabilities factor' does not render it unworthy of credence. As a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from medical evidence. However, in…
PincitesPara 11 and 12; Page 2-3
-
Mukesh v. State of NCT of Delhi
RatioConviction for rape can be based on the sole testimony of the survivor and the same does not require corroboration, provided that the testimony is natural and trustworthy. The Court must look at the broad probabilities, not discard the testimony due to minor contradictions which are not substantial in character given that they are usually…
PincitesPara 383-393; Page 200-205
-
Rajinder alias Raju v. State of Himachal Pradesh
RatioConviction can be based on the sole testimony of the survivor. There is only need to look for corroboration when the prosecution’s case suffers from high improbabilities.
PincitesPara 19; Page 11
-
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Asha Ram
RatioConviction can be based on the sole testimony of the child survivor. Corroboration of the child survivor’s testimony is only a general prudence necessitated in certain circumstances and is not a requirement of law. Minor inconsistencies are immaterial and must not form a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.
PincitesPara 5, 15-20; Page 5, 8-10
-
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh
RatioCorroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. If the testimony of the child is reliable and inspires confidence, courts can convict on the disposition of the child survivor alone. Supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in…
PincitesPara 9 and 13 Page 5-7, 10
-
Phool Singh v. State of MP
RatioConviction can be based on the sole testimony of the survivor, without any further corroboration, provided the testimony is found reliable and trustworthy. Even in the absence of any external or internal injuries on the person of the survivor, the conviction can be sustained.
PincitesPara 4-11, Pages 3-11
-
Ganesan v. State
RatioIn cases where the child survivor is found to be worthy of credence and reliable even if other witnesses turn hostile, conviction can be based on her sole testimony. No corroboration is required.
PincitesPara 8.1-12, Pages 4-9