-
Attorney General of India and Ors. v. Satish and Ors.
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 Read case : Attorney General of India and Ors. v. Satish and Ors. -
Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh
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. Read case : Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh -
Pastor Muniyandi @ Ramesh v. State
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 Read case : Pastor Muniyandi @ Ramesh v. State -
Bhupen Kalita v. State of Assam
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 Read case : Bhupen Kalita v. State of Assam -
Ranjit Rajbanshi v. The State of West Bengal and Ors.
When the prosecution fails to establish a strong preponderance of probability sufficient to raise a presumption under Section 29 POCSO, the negative burden to prove their innocence will not shift to the accused if the defence effectively discredits the prosecution's case, the accused will be discharged of their onus under Section 29 POCSO.
Pincites Para 43, 50, 52, 53; Page 5, 6, 7 Read case : Ranjit Rajbanshi v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. -
Lalmalsom Kaipeng v. The State of Tripura
The duty to rebut the presumption under Section 29 POCSO arising only after the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the foundational facts.The burden to rebut the presumption can be discharged by the accused through effective cross-examination, or by adducing defence evidence or by the accused himself tendering oral evidence. The presumption and the duty to…
Pincites Para 27-33; Page 5, 6 & 7 Read case : Lalmalsom Kaipeng v. The State of Tripura -
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.
