Case Repository

The testimony of a survivor in sexual offences cases is vital unless compelling reasons necessitate corroboration. Courts should find no difficulty to convict on the testimony of the survivor of a sexual assault alone if the testimony inspires confidence.

Para 31, Page 11

Conviction can be based solely on the testimony of the child survivor if it is trustworthy and reliable, even in the absence of corroborating evidence or injuries. Minor discrepancies in her does not make it unreliable.

Para 9-15 Page 195-198, 204, 205

Convictions for rape can be founded solely on the testimony of the survivor, without the need for corroboration. However, if the court finds the testimony insufficiently credible on its own, it may seek additional evidence to bolster the survivor's account. A survivor's testimony under oath should be believed unless the testimony is such as would…

Para 11, 19 Page 39,42-44

Testimony of a child can only be relied on if it is intelligible. A testimony is intelligible based on (a) the ability to understand questions put to the witness and (b) give answers to those questions that can be understood. If evidence is in the favour of the victim, mere lapses in the victim's statement…

Para 29-31, 34-37, 39-41, 42-44, 50, 61, 72-75; Page 5-8, 11, 14

Where foundational facts have been established, the presumption under section 29 POCSO becomes operational and the accused is bound to rebut the presumption.

Para 32; Page 39 & 40.

When 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.

Para 43, 50, 52, 53; Page 5, 6, 7

While sexual intent under S. 8 POCSO is a question of fact, the Court is entitled to raise the presumption under S. 30 POCSO with regard to the culpable state of mind of the accused when the court is satisfied with the existence of a fact beyond reasonable doubt.

Para 36-37, 42; Page 15, 17