-
Sunil Kumar vs. State of NCT Delhi.
If the statement of the survivor inspires confidence, then the court may convict on the statement alone.
Pincites Para 18-19; Page 4 Read case : Sunil Kumar vs. State of NCT 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 -
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) -
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 -
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) -
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 -
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. -
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) -
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 -
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
All cases
Every case in the repository, across all categories.