Showing 1–4 of 4 cases

High Court of Gauhati High Court of Madras Supreme Court of India

  1. Supreme Court of India AIR2022SC13

    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.

  2. Supreme Court of India Criminal Appeal Nos. 1097-1098 of 2018

    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

  3. High Court of Madras Crl. A. Nos. 130 of 2018, 190, 506 of 2019 and Crl. M. P. No. 3169 of 2018 in Crl. A. No. 130 of 2018

    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

  4. High Court of Gauhati Crl. Appeal (J) 87/2017

    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