-
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 -
Rajinder alias Raju v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the survivor. There is only need to look for corroboration when the prosecution’s case suffers from high improbabilities.
Pincites Para 19; Page 11 Read case : Rajinder alias Raju v. State of Himachal Pradesh -
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Asha Ram
Conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the child survivor. Corroboration of the child survivor’s testimony is only a general prudence necessitated in certain circumstances and is not a requirement of law. Minor inconsistencies are immaterial and must not form a ground for throwing out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.
Pincites Para 5, 15-20; Page 5, 8-10 Read case : State of Himachal Pradesh v. Asha Ram -
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh
Corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape. If the testimony of the child is reliable and inspires confidence, courts can convict on the disposition of the child survivor alone. Supposed considerations which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in…
Pincites Para 9 and 13 Page 5-7, 10 Read case : State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh -
Phool Singh v. State of MP
Conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the survivor, without any further corroboration, provided the testimony is found reliable and trustworthy. Even in the absence of any external or internal injuries on the person of the survivor, the conviction can be sustained.
Pincites Para 4-11, Pages 3-11 Read case : Phool Singh v. State of MP -
Justin v. Union of India and Ors.
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 Read case : Justin v. Union of India and Ors.
All cases
Every case in the repository, across all categories.