-
State of Maharashtra v Bandu @ Daulat
The court reiterated the guidelines laid down in Sakshi v Union of India and mandated their implementation by January 2018. It emphasized the necessity of creating a conducive environment for vulnerable witnesses to provide their statements with special guidelines for child survivors of sexual abuse. It directed that special centres for the examination of vulnerable…
Pincites Para 11, 12; Page 3, 4 Read case : State of Maharashtra v Bandu @ Daulat -
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 -
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 -
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 -
Atul Gorakhnath Ambale v. State of Maharashtra
The 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…
Pincites Para 11 - 15; Page 2 - 5 Read case : Atul Gorakhnath Ambale v. State of Maharashtra -
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) -
S. Sankara Varman Vs. State
The Court held that Sections 33(5) and 36(1) of the POCSO Act mandate that a child survivor ought not to be called repeatedly to testify in the Court. While Section 311 of the CrPC gives power to the Court to recall any witness to serve the cause of justice, but the said section is subject…
Pincites Para 19, 23; Page 3,4 Read case : S. Sankara Varman Vs. State -
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 -
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 -
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
All cases
Every case in the repository, across all categories.