Repository

Case Repository

21–30 of 39 cases
  1. Supreme Court of India (2018) 11 SCC 163

    State of Maharashtra v Bandu @ Daulat

    Ratio

    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

  2. High Court of Delhi 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10301

    Court on its Own Motion v. State

    Ratio

    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

  3. High Court of Delhi 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1952

    State v. Sujeet Kumar

    Ratio

    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

  4. High Court of Karnataka 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 12300

    Hanumantha Mogaveera v. State of Karnataka

    Ratio

    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

  5. High Court of Bombay 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 873

    Atul Gorakhnath Ambale v. State of Maharashtra

    Ratio

    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

  6. High Court of Delhi Crl M.C. 1615 of 2020

    Vikas Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

    Ratio

    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

  7. High Court of Madras 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 5681

    S. Sankara Varman Vs. State

    Ratio

    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

  8. High Court of Manipur 2019 SCC OnLine Mani 164

    Lalsuonglien and Ors. v. State of Manipur

    Ratio

    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

  9. Supreme Court of India (2019) 16 SCC 759

    State of Himachal Pradesh v. Manga Singh

    Ratio

    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

  10. Supreme Court of India AIR 2017 SC 2161

    Mukesh v. State of NCT of Delhi

    Ratio

    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