D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. B. PARDIWALA
Just Rights For Children Alliance – Appellant
Versus
S. Harish – Respondent
In the context of the case Just Rights For Children Alliance vs S. Harish, the Court has emphasized that before the statutory presumption of culpable mental state can be validly invoked under the relevant legislation, the prosecution is required to establish certain foundational facts. These foundational facts serve as the essential basis upon which the presumption is triggered. Specifically, the prosecution must first demonstrate that the accused engaged in the actus reus—such as storage or possession of child pornographic material—at a particular point in time, and that this act was committed with a certain intent or purpose as prescribed under the relevant provisions. Only upon establishing these initial facts can the court then presume the existence of the culpable mental state, shifting the burden to the accused to rebut such presumption (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:
| INDEX |
| A. FACTUAL MATRIX |
| B. IMPUGNED ORDER |
| C. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES |
| i. Submissions on behalf of the Appellants. |
| ii. Submissions on behalf of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR). |
| iii. Submissions on behalf of the respondent no. 1/the Sole Accused |
| iv. Submissions on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 & 3/the State. |
| D. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION |
| E. ANALYSIS |
| i. Relevant Statutory Scheme and Provisions. |
| a. Legislative History and Scheme of the POCSO. |
| b. Relevant Provisions of the IT Act |
| ii. Scope of Section 15 of the POCSO and Section 67B of the IT Act. |
| a. Contradictory Views of different High Courts on the subject |
| b. Three distinct offences punishable under Section 15 of the POCSO. |
| I. Concept of an Inchoate Crime – The ‘Actus Reus’ and ‘Mens Rea’ required under Section 15. |
| II. Concept of ‘Possession’, ‘Constructive Possession’ and ‘Immediate Control’ under Section 15 of the POCSO. |
| c. Pornographic Material must pri |
Chandi Kumar Das Karmarkar v. Abanidhar Roy
Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P.
Independent Thought v. Union of India & Anr. reported in 2017 INSC 1030 [Para 52] – Relied.
Attorney General for India v. Satish reported in 2021 INSC 762 [Para 53] – Relied.
Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2022 INSC 162 [Para 56] – Relied.
Manuel Benny v. State of Kerala reported in 2022 KER 9730 [Para 65] – Relied.
Lakshya v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Criminal Writ Petition No. 479 of 2022)
Shantheeshlal T. v. State of Kerala reported in 2024 KER 35968 [Para 67] – Relied.
Akash Vijay v. State of Kerala reported in 2024 KER 42626 [Para 68] – Relied.
Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab [1983 (3) SCC 470] [Para 74] – Relied.
Devender Pal Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)[AIR 2002 SC 1661 [Para 74] – Relied.
Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi reported in (2017) 2 SCC 18 [Para 152] – Relied.
Sakshi v. Union of India reported in (2004) 5 SCC 518 [Para 157] – Relied.
R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta reported in (2009) 1 SCC 516 [Para 157
State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh
Bhanabhai Khalpabhai v. Collector of Customs reported in 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 143 [Para 159
Devchand Kalyan Tandel v. State of Gujarat reported in (1996) 6 SCC 255 [Para 160] – Relied.
State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh reported in (1999) 6 SCC 172 [Para 161] – Relied.
Seema Silk Sarees v. Directorate of Enforcement reported in (2008) 5 SCC 580 [Para 162] – Relied.
Noor Aga v. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2008) 16 SCC 417 [Para 163] – Relied.
Bhola Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2011) 11 SCC 653 [Para 164] – Relied.
Baldev Singh v. State of Haryana reported in (2015) 7 SCC 554 [Para 165] – Relied.
Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT reported in (2004) 9 SCC 686 [Para 182] – Relied.
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat
Suvvari Sanyasi Apparao v. Boddepalli Lakhminarayana, Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1961
National Spot Exchange Ltd. v. Anil Kohli, Resolution Professional for Dunar Foods Ltd.
Raghunath Rai Bareja v. Punjab National Bank
Madamanchi Ramappa v. Muthaluru Bojjappa
Council for Indian School Certificate Examination v. Isha Mittal
Laxminarayan R. Bhattad v. State of Maharashtra
Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram Agarwal
India House v. Kishan N. Lalwani
M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das
Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra
State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Maroti
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [Para 253] – Relied.
(1) Child Pornography – Sexual exploitation of children is a pervasive and deeply rooted issue that has plagued societies worldwide and has been a matter of serious concern in India – Increasing inci....
Possession of child pornographic material requires proof of intent to transmit; mere downloading without intent does not constitute an offence under applicable laws.
The non-obstante clause in Section 19 of the POCSO Act mandates reporting of offences without excluding the applicability of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. for public servants acting in their official ca....
Mandatory reporting of offences under the POCSO Act is crucial, and failure to report is punishable, emphasizing the seriousness of non-compliance.
(1) Provision of Section 23 of POCSO which protects child victims of sexual abuse from unwarranted intrusion into privacy, harassment and mental agony has to be strictly enforced – Provision cannot b....
Prompt and proper reporting of commission of offence under POCSO Act is of utmost importance – Non-reporting of sexual assault against a minor child despite knowledge is a serious crime and more ofte....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the interpretation of Section 15 of the POCSO Act before and after the amendme....
(1) Courts must follow and implement law – Courts cannot commit violence against law.(2) Kidnapping and rape of minor girl – When such offences of rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault are c....
Failure to promptly report knowledge of a sexual offence against a child constitutes an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and is punishable under Section 21.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.