SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 808

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. B. PARDIWALA
Just Rights For Children Alliance – Appellant
Versus
S. Harish – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. H.S. Phoolka, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Adv. Mr. Bhuwan Ribhu, Adv. Ms. Rachna Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Saksham Maheshwari, AOR Ms. Shashi, Adv. Ms. Taruna Panwar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Amol N. Suryawanshi, Adv. Mr. Prashant S. Kenjale, Adv. Ms. Srishty Pandey, Adv. M/s. Juristrust Law Offices Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhaid Parikh, AOR Ms. Katyayani Anand, Adv. Ms. Saumya Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Aayush Shivam, Adv. Ms. Kavita Chaturvedi, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

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


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top