Repository

Case Repository

21–30 of 32 cases
  1. High Court of Delhi Crl. A. 1288/2019 [(2022) 293 DLT 236]

    Parsu Ram vs. State

    Ratio

    The conviction can be based even on the uncorroborated evidence of the child survivor, if the same inspires confidence. The Courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the child survivor, which are not of a fatal nature, to throw…

    Pincites

    Para 11-21, 17, 22-23, 26,28 Page 3, 4, 5-7

  2. High Court of Delhi Crl. A. 71/2021 and Crl. M. (BAIL) 150/2021 [2021 SCC OnLine Del 2391]

    Sunil Kumar vs. State of NCT Delhi.

    Ratio

    If the statement of the victim inspires confidence, then the court may convict on the statement alone. Relied on State of Himachal Pradesh v. Manga Singh and State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh.

    Pincites

    Para 18-19; Page 4

  3. High Court of Delhi CRL.A. 1231/2018 [2020 SCC OnLine Del 1378]

    Ishwer Soni v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

    Ratio

    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

  4. High Court of Delhi 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4380 : (2021) 227 AIC 475

    Mohan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)

    Ratio

    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.

  5. High Court of Bombay Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2016 [2022 (4) Bom CR (Cri) 182]

    Vitthal Rajendra Jogade v. State of Maharashtra

    Ratio

    Absence of any injuries on the person of the child survivor might not by itself discredit the statement of the child survivor and in such a situation the non-production of a medical report would not be of much consequence if the other evidence was believable. Corroboration is not the sine qua non for a conviction…

    Pincites

    Para 12; Page 4

  6. High Court of Kerala WA No. 1651 of 2020 [MANU/KE/3811/2021]

    Justin v. Union of India and Ors.

    Ratio

    Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act are held to be Constitutional and they do not violate the Fundamental Rights, nor are they contrary to the basic criminal Principles. Presumption under Sections 29 and 30 POCSO would become operational only after the prosecution has established the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt.

    Pincites

    Para 21-31, 35; Page 15-18

  7. Supreme Court of India Criminal Appeal No. 1410 of 2021 (AIR2022SC13)

    Attorney General of India and Ors. v. Satish and Ors.

    Ratio

    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

  8. Supreme Court of India Criminal Appeal Nos. 1097-1098 of 2018 (MANU/SC/0167/2022)

    Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh

    Ratio

    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.

  9. High Court of Madras Crl. A. Nos. 130 of 2018 (2022-1-LW(Crl)584)

    Pastor Muniyandi @ Ramesh v. State

    Ratio

    The presumption clause of Section 29 POCSO is applicable to both the offender and the abettor of the offence. When foundational facts have been established, the accused must discharge the reverse burden cast by Sections 29 and 30 POCSO.

    Pincites

    Para 16-17; Page 8

  10. High Court of Gauhati Crl. Appeal (J) 87/2017 [MANU/GH/0220/2020]

    Bhupen Kalita v. State of Assam

    Ratio

    For the applicability of Section 29, the prosecution is required to establish foundational facts on the standard of preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. Once prosecution has been able to establish foundational facts based on preponderance of probability then by legal presumption under Section 29 of Act it could be said that prosecution…

    Pincites

    Para 63, 66, 123; Page 24, 28, 29, 52