What are presumptions under s 29 and 30 of Pocso Act?

 Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, 2012, create a mandatory "reverse burden of proof," requiring special courts to presume the accused is guilty of sexual offences (Section 29) and possessed a culpable mental state (Section 30). The accused must prove their innocence, rather than the prosecution proving guilt, departing from traditional criminal jurisprudence. 

Key Aspects of Section 29 (Presumption of Guilt):

• Application: Applies to offences under Sections 3, 5, 7, and 9 (sexual assault, aggravated assault).
• Requirement: The Special Court shall presume the accused committed, abetted, or attempted the offence.
• Rebuttal: The accused must prove the contrary to overcome this presumption.
• Limitation: Courts have held that this presumption is not absolute; the prosecution must first establish foundational facts (i.e., that the act actually occurred). 

Key Aspects of Section 30 (Presumption of Culpable Mental State):

• Requirement: The court will presume a "culpable mental state" (intention, motive, knowledge) on the part of the accused.
• Burden: The burden lies on the accused to prove they had no such mental state.
• For the purposes of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the Special Court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability.

Judicial Interpretation & Scope

• Not a Replacement for Prosecution Evidence: While these sections shift the onus, the prosecution must still prove "foundational facts" to trigger the presumption.
• Purpose: These provisions aim to protect vulnerable children from the trauma of prolonged trials and rigorous cross-examination, reflecting the need for swift justice in child abuse cases.

Print Page

Madhya Pradesh HC: Step father is not liable to maintain his step children

As per the said section, it reveals that the legislative stress is on his wife, his legitimate or illegitimate child or his father or mother. When the stress is on the word 'his', it obviously means that it would include only the person who procreates, begets or brings forth offspring. It will not include a child of another father or mother of another person.

10. In the present case, non-applicant No. 2 is the daughter of 1st marriage of non-applicant No. 1 and not of the applicant, therefore, the Family Court has erred in awarding the maintenance to non-applicant No. 2.

11. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Annu Bala (supra) in para 4 and 5 has held as under:-

"4. Perusal of the relevant provisions referred to above reveal that legislative stress is on his wife, his legitimate or illegitimate child or his father or mother. When the stress is on the word 'his', it obviously means that it would include only the person who procreates, begets or brings forth offspring. It will not include a child of another father or mother of another person. 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (JABALPUR BENCH)

Criminal Revision No. 704/2015

Decided On: 05.07.2018

Pradeep Jain Vs. Manjulata Jain Modi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vandana Kasrekar, J.

Citation:MANU/MP/0248/2018.

Print Page

What is part performance of specific contract as per S 12 of the Specific Relief Act?

 Part performance in the Specific Relief Act means specific performance of only a part of the contract, and the general rule is that the court does not order performance of a part alone. Section 12 is the key provision, and it allows exceptions where the unperformed part is small and compensable, or in some cases where the plaintiff is willing to accept partial performance and relinquish the remaining claim and compensation.

30 second answer

Print Page

Supreme Court: Relinquishment Of Claims Under S.12(3) of Specific Relief Act For Part Performance Can Be Made At Any Stage Of Litigation including at appellate stage

Thus, the position of law is that relinquishment could be made at any stage of the litigation including the appellate stage. The claim of the plaintiff appellant for grant of benefit under

Section 12(3) of the Act was, therefore, rightly not rejected by

the High Court on the simple ground that it was not made at the

trial stage and had been made for the first time at the appellate

stage. In our view the claim can also not be rejected on the short

ground that it was not incorporated in the plaint or was not set

forth in writing before the Trial Court. [See: Ram Niwas v. Smt.

Omkari and another : AIR 1983 All 310] {Para 21}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.25246/2023

VIJAY PRABHU Vs S.T. LAJAPATHIE & ORS. 

Citation: 2025 INSC 52.

Print Page