Repository

Case Repository

1–9 of 9 cases
  1. Supreme Court of India (Crl.) No. 5073/2011 [(2014) 8 SCC 913]

    The State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Police v. Shivanna alias Tarkari Shivanna

    Ratio

    The high court issued interim directions to all the police stations for the recording of 164 statement: The investigating officer should preferably be female. The IO shall take immediate steps to take the prosecutrix to a female MM magistrate for the recording of the 164 statement, within 24 hours. In case the time period is…

    Pincites

    Para 1, 2, 9; Page 1, 3

  2. High Court of Madras Crl. O.P. No. 12148 of 2017 [2017 Cri LJ 5011]

    Murugasamy Vs. The State and Ors.

    Ratio

    The court, in this case, analysed the procedure to record 164 statements of the victim/witness i.e- once the magistrate records a 164 statement, a record of the statement should be sent to the investigating officer and the jurisdictional court. The statement should not be made public. The court also observed that the term “Magistrate” under…

    Pincites

    Para 17, 21, 24, 28, 44, 48, 50, 51; Page 8-10, 14-17

  3. Supreme Court of India Criminal Appeal No. 1410 of 2021 (AIR2022SC13)

    Attorney General of India and Ors. v. Satish and Ors.

    Ratio

    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

  4. Supreme Court of India Criminal Appeal Nos. 1097-1098 of 2018 (MANU/SC/0167/2022)

    Pappu v. State of Uttar Pradesh

    Ratio

    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.

  5. High Court of Madras Crl. A. Nos. 130 of 2018 (2022-1-LW(Crl)584)

    Pastor Muniyandi @ Ramesh v. State

    Ratio

    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

  6. High Court of Gauhati Crl. Appeal (J) 87/2017 [MANU/GH/0220/2020]

    Bhupen Kalita v. State of Assam

    Ratio

    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

  7. High Court of Calcutta C.R.A. No. 458 of 2018 and IA No. CRAN 2 of 2020 [MANU/WB/0635/2021]

    Ranjit Rajbanshi v. The State of West Bengal and Ors.

    Ratio

    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

  8. High Court of Tripura at Agartala Crl. A (J) 34 of 2019 [MANU/TR/0211/2021]

    Lalmalsom Kaipeng v. The State of Tripura

    Ratio

    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

  9. High Court of Kerala WA No. 1651 of 2020 [MANU/KE/3811/2021]

    Justin v. Union of India and Ors.

    Ratio

    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