-
Parsu Ram vs. State
RatioThe 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…
PincitesPara 11-21, 17, 22-23, 26,28 Page 3, 4, 5-7
-
Sunil Kumar vs. State of NCT Delhi.
RatioIf 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.
PincitesPara 18-19; Page 4
-
Ishwer Soni v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
RatioIt 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…
PincitesPara 16-18, 20; Page 4
-
Mohan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)
RatioThe 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.
Pincitespara 19, 23 & 24.
-
Vitthal Rajendra Jogade v. State of Maharashtra
RatioAbsence 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…
PincitesPara 12; Page 4
-
Justin v. Union of India and Ors.
RatioSections 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.
PincitesPara 21-31, 35; Page 15-18
-
Attorney General of India and Ors. v. Satish and Ors.
RatioWhile 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.
PincitesPara 36-37, 42; Page 15, 17
-
Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh
RatioWhere foundational facts have been established, the presumption under section 29 POCSO becomes operational and the accused is bound to rebut the presumption.
PincitesPara 32; Page 39 & 40.
-
Pastor Muniyandi @ Ramesh v. State
RatioThe 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.
PincitesPara 16-17; Page 8
-
Bhupen Kalita v. State of Assam
RatioFor 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…
PincitesPara 63, 66, 123; Page 24, 28, 29, 52