-
Hanumantha Mogaveera v. State of Karnataka
RatioThe court held that the child’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC in the course of investigation cannot be considered as substantive evidence under Section 35 of the POCSO Act. The court further held that the requirement of expeditious recording of a child victim’s evidence under Section 35 of the POCSO Act is…
PincitesPara 21-27, 41- 44, 49, 50, 56-61
-
Lalmalsom Kaipeng v. The State of Tripura
RatioThe 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…
PincitesPara 27-33; Page 5, 6 & 7
-
Justin v. Union of India and Ors.
RatioSections 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.
PincitesPara 21-31, 35; Page 15-18