-
Ishwer Soni v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
It is well settled that in a case of rape, the finding of guilt can be recorded even on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of the child survivor provided it is cogent and reliable. Even in a case of penetration, the consistent judicial diktat is that absence of injuries may not always be fatal to…
Pincites Para 16-18, 20; Page 4 Read case : Ishwer Soni v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) -
Court on its Own Motion v. State
The court held that a statement under the POCSO Act can be made only to a police officer or magistrate. Counsellors and NGOs can merely play a facilitative role and cannot take a statement from the child. Further, the court clarified that the notes of the counsellor or the expert are confidential and cannot be…
Pincites Para 6-8, 10, 12, 14-17, 19-21, 77-78, 87-89, 93-94 Read case : Court on its Own Motion v. State -
Mohan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)
The child survivor being of tender age may have contradictions in their testimony. However, if they are consistent in their testimony as to the incident and are able to identify the accused, they would be considered a competent witness and their testimony may be admitted.
Pincites para 19, 23 & 24. Read case : Mohan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) -
State v. Sujeet Kumar
The court interpreted Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“IEA”) in reference to POCSO cases and held that evidence of child survivors cannot be rejected per se but merits close scrutiny by the court as a rule of prudence. The court further discussed the various aspects of determining the competence of child survivor,…
Pincites Para 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50-52, 57, 58 Read case : State v. Sujeet Kumar -
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 -
Vikas Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Applications for recalling a child survivor under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) are subject to Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act on the principle of generalia specialibus non-derogant. The conflicting rights of the accused and the survivor have to be balanced when considering such an application.
Pincites Para 25; Page 17 Read case : Vikas Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) -
Attorney General of India and Ors. v. Satish and Ors.
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.
Pincites Para 36-37, 42; Page 15, 17 Read case : Attorney General of India and Ors. v. Satish and Ors. -
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Manga Singh
Corroboration 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…
Pincites Para 11 and 12; Page 2-3 Read case : State of Himachal Pradesh v. Manga Singh -
Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Where foundational facts have been established, the presumption under section 29 POCSO becomes operational and the accused is bound to rebut the presumption.
Pincites Para 32; Page 39 & 40. Read case : Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh -
Mukesh v. State of NCT of Delhi
Conviction 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…
Pincites Para 383-393; Page 200-205 Read case : Mukesh v. State of NCT of Delhi