Showing 1–3 of 3 cases

High Court of Kerala High Court of Calcutta

  1. High Court of Calcutta 2022 Cri LJ 439

    Raju Roy vs. State of West Bengal

    Testimony of a child can only be relied on if it is intelligible. A testimony is intelligible based on (a) the ability to understand questions put to the witness and (b) give answers to those questions that can be understood. If evidence is in the favour of the survivor, mere lapses in the survivor's statement…

    Pincites  Para 29-31, 34-37, 39-41, 42-44, 50, 61, 72-75; Page 5-8, 11, 14 Read case : Raju Roy vs. State of West Bengal

  2. High Court of Calcutta C.R.A. No. 458 of 2018 and IA No. CRAN 2 of 2020

    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.

  3. High Court of Kerala WA No. 1651 of 2020

    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.