Posts

Deepak in JC v. State Govt. of NCT Delhi: Supreme Court Explains Limits of POCSO Presumption Under Section 29 and Reverse Burden of Proof

-
Introduction The Supreme Court of India, in Deepak in JC v. State Govt. of NCT Delhi , decided on 17 September 2026 , examined an important question concerning the appreciation of evidence in prosecutions under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The case involved the interpretation and operation of Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act , which create statutory presumptions against an accused in specified circumstances. The Supreme Court clarified that these presumptions do not mean that the prosecution's version must automatically be accepted. The prosecution must first establish the foundational facts necessary for the statutory presumption to operate. Even thereafter, the court must objectively examine the entire evidence and ensure that the accused receives a fair trial. The Court also examined material contradictions in witness testimony, medical evidence, forensic evidence, and the standard of proof in criminal cases. Ultimately, the Supreme ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Admissibility of Secondary Evidence & Statutory Presumptions under Section 85: Supreme Court Analysis in Tharammel Peethambaran v. T. Ushakrishnan

-
Case Details Case Name: Tharammel Peethambaran and Another v. T. Ushakrishnan and Another Citation / Case Number: 2026 INSC 134 | Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11868 of 2024) Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti (Judgment authored by S.V.N. Bhatti, J.) Date of Judgment: February 06, 2026 Factual Matrix The 1st Respondent (Plaintiff), residing in Mumbai, is the undisputed owner of the Plaint A-Schedule properties situated in Kozhikode . In 1998, she executed a Power of Attorney (PoA) in favor of her brother, the 1st Appellant (1st Defendant), who resided in Kozhikode, solely to manage the schedule properties . According to the Plaintiff, she specifically struck out all clauses authorizing mortgage or alienation from the initial draft (Exh. A-3) before executing the final PoA (Exh. A-4) . In March 2007, the 1st Defendant executed registered sale deeds in favor of his...
Post a Comment
Read more