Showing 1–3 of 3 cases

High Court of Madras High Court of Gauhati High Court of Tripura at Agartala

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. High Court of Tripura at Agartala Crl. A (J) 34 of 2019

    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