Showing 1–3 of 3 cases

High Court of Tripura at Agartala High Court of Kerala High Court of Gauhati

  1. 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

  2. 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

  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.