All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >   Directions: Read the following passage and a... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.
Under the POCSO Act, Section 29 and 30 deals with reverse onus clauses. Section 29 states that whenever a person is prosecuted for committing, abetting to commit or attempting to commit an offence under Sections 3,5,7 and 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall presume that the offence has been committed, abetting or attempted to commit the offence unless the accused can prove to the contrary. Section 30 deals with presumption of culpability of the mental state of the accused with regards to any offence committed under the POCSO Act until the defence proves it otherwise. Further, subclause (2) states that the defence has to prove the innocence of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and not on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.
Under principles of procedural fairness in the common law the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Until this is proved, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. The pair of presumptions lead to the commencement of proceedings against the accused with a presumption of guilt. Therefore, it is the prosecution which should prove the concurrent presence of mens rea and actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt. This reverse burden on the accused to prove his innocence was incorporated in the POCSO Act keeping in view the low conviction rate of sexual offences against children.
Right to equality as envisaged under article 14 of the constitution encompasses both- Right to equality and equality of opportunity. The equals have to be treated equally and differentiation can only be made on the basis of intelligible differentia having a nexus with the object of the legislation. Article 14 pervades Article 21 and something which is not a valid procedure under Article 14 will automatically not be a fair procedure under Article 21. . The procedure established by law which can be used to curtail the freedom under these section has to be fair, just and reasonable, and non-arbitrary.
The Legislature was aware that there were chances of false accusation and hence had put Section 22 of the POCSO which punishes the persons who falsely accuse the other of offences under the Act.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani clarified that if a bail plea is being considered before charges have been framed, Section 29 has no application. 'Trial' commences when charges are framed against an accused and not before that, Justice Bhambhani said. Only at the stage when charges are framed does the court apply its judicial mind to whether there is enough evidence on record to frame a precise allegation, which the accused must answer.
"Therefore, it is only once charges are framed that the accused knows exactly what he is alleged to be guilty of; and therefore, what guilt he is required to rebut," he said, adding an accused cannot be asked to disprove his guilt even before the foundational allegations with supporting evidence that suggest guilt are placed by the prosecution before the court.
Q. Mr. Animesh is a neighbour of the Roy family and shares a good relation with them. One evening the Roys went out for an invitation and kept their only daughter Janvi aged about 5 years in custody of Mr. Animesh for a few hours. Mr. Animesh tried to touch the genitals of the child when she felt. uncomfortable, he slapped her. Janvi later told the incident to her mother who lodged police complaint.
  • a)
    Court shall presume that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.
  • b)
    Court shall not presume that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.
  • c)
    Court shall presume only after prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.
  • d)
    None.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under ...
This is the correct option for the given question.
Since according to Janvi statement, Animesh harassed her by making feeling her uncomfortable. Section 29 states that whenever a person is prosecuted for committing, abetting to commit or attempting to commit an offence.
Under Sections 3,5,7 and 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall presume that the offence has been committed, abetting or attempted to commit the offence unless the accused can prove to the contrary.
Therefore, the correct answer is Court shall presume that Mr. Animesh has committed an offence under POSCO Act.
Attention CLAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under the POCSO Act, Section 29 and 30 deals with reverse onus clauses. Section 29 states that whenever a person is prosecuted for committing, abetting to commit or attempting to commit an offence under Sections 3,5,7 and 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall presume that the offence has been committed, abetting or attempted to commit the offence unless the accused can prove to the contrary. Section 30 deals with presumption of culpability of the mental state of the accused with regards to any offence committed under the POCSO Act until the defence proves it otherwise. Further, subclause (2) states that the defence has to prove the innocence of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and not on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.Under principles of procedural fairness in the common law the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Until this is proved, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. The pair of presumptions lead to the commencement of proceedings against the accused with a presumption of guilt. Therefore, it is the prosecution which should prove the concurrent presence of mens rea and actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt. This reverse burden on the accused to prove his innocence was incorporated in the POCSO Act keeping in view the low conviction rate of sexual offences against children.Right to equality as envisaged under article 14 of the constitution encompasses both- Right to equality and equality of opportunity. The equals have to be treated equally and differentiation can only be made on the basis of intelligible differentia having a nexus with the object of the legislation. Article 14 pervades Article 21 and something which is not a valid procedure under Article 14 will automatically not be a fair procedure under Article 21. . The procedure established by law which can be used to curtail the freedom under these section has to be fair, just and reasonable, and non-arbitrary.The Legislature was aware that there were chances of false accusation and hence had put Section 22 of the POCSO which punishes the persons who falsely accuse the other of offences under the Act.Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani clarified that if a bail plea is being considered before charges have been framed, Section 29 has no application. 'Trial' commences when charges are framed against an accused and not before that, Justice Bhambhani said. Only at the stage when charges are framed does the court apply its judicial mind to whether there is enough evidence on record to frame a precise allegation, which the accused must answer."Therefore, it is only once charges are framed that the accused knows exactly what he is alleged to be guilty of; and therefore, what guilt he is required to rebut," he said, adding an accused cannot be asked to disprove his guilt even before the foundational allegations with supporting evidence that suggest guilt are placed by the prosecution before the court.Q. Shyam is a tenant in the house of the Singh Family and has been residing in the house for more than 30 years. The Singhs are unable to vacate the room and in order to get rid of the tenant Mr. Singh filed a complaint alleging sexual assault being committed on his daughter by Shyam.

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under the POCSO Act, Section 29 and 30 deals with reverse onus clauses. Section 29 states that whenever a person is prosecuted for committing, abetting to commit or attempting to commit an offence under Sections 3,5,7 and 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall presume that the offence has been committed, abetting or attempted to commit the offence unless the accused can prove to the contrary. Section 30 deals with presumption of culpability of the mental state of the accused with regards to any offence committed under the POCSO Act until the defence proves it otherwise. Further, subclause (2) states that the defence has to prove the innocence of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and not on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.Under principles of procedural fairness in the common law the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Until this is proved, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. The pair of presumptions lead to the commencement of proceedings against the accused with a presumption of guilt. Therefore, it is the prosecution which should prove the concurrent presence of mens rea and actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt. This reverse burden on the accused to prove his innocence was incorporated in the POCSO Act keeping in view the low conviction rate of sexual offences against children.Right to equality as envisaged under article 14 of the constitution encompasses both- Right to equality and equality of opportunity. The equals have to be treated equally and differentiation can only be made on the basis of intelligible differentia having a nexus with the object of the legislation. Article 14 pervades Article 21 and something which is not a valid procedure under Article 14 will automatically not be a fair procedure under Article 21. . The procedure established by law which can be used to curtail the freedom under these section has to be fair, just and reasonable, and non-arbitrary.The Legislature was aware that there were chances of false accusation and hence had put Section 22 of the POCSO which punishes the persons who falsely accuse the other of offences under the Act.Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani clarified that if a bail plea is being considered before charges have been framed, Section 29 has no application. 'Trial' commences when charges are framed against an accused and not before that, Justice Bhambhani said. Only at the stage when charges are framed does the court apply its judicial mind to whether there is enough evidence on record to frame a precise allegation, which the accused must answer."Therefore, it is only once charges are framed that the accused knows exactly what he is alleged to be guilty of; and therefore, what guilt he is required to rebut," he said, adding an accused cannot be asked to disprove his guilt even before the foundational allegations with supporting evidence that suggest guilt are placed by the prosecution before the court.Q. Article 21 of the constitution enshrines

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under the POCSO Act, Section 29 and 30 deals with reverse onus clauses. Section 29 states that whenever a person is prosecuted for committing, abetting to commit or attempting to commit an offence under Sections 3,5,7 and 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall presume that the offence has been committed, abetting or attempted to commit the offence unless the accused can prove to the contrary. Section 30 deals with presumption of culpability of the mental state of the accused with regards to any offence committed under the POCSO Act until the defence proves it otherwise. Further, subclause (2) states that the defence has to prove the innocence of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and not on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.Under principles of procedural fairness in the common law the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Until this is proved, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. The pair of presumptions lead to the commencement of proceedings against the accused with a presumption of guilt. Therefore, it is the prosecution which should prove the concurrent presence of mens rea and actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt. This reverse burden on the accused to prove his innocence was incorporated in the POCSO Act keeping in view the low conviction rate of sexual offences against children.Right to equality as envisaged under article 14 of the constitution encompasses both- Right to equality and equality of opportunity. The equals have to be treated equally and differentiation can only be made on the basis of intelligible differentia having a nexus with the object of the legislation. Article 14 pervades Article 21 and something which is not a valid procedure under Article 14 will automatically not be a fair procedure under Article 21. . The procedure established by law which can be used to curtail the freedom under these section has to be fair, just and reasonable, and non-arbitrary.The Legislature was aware that there were chances of false accusation and hence had put Section 22 of the POCSO which punishes the persons who falsely accuse the other of offences under the Act.Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani clarified that if a bail plea is being considered before charges have been framed, Section 29 has no application. 'Trial' commences when charges are framed against an accused and not before that, Justice Bhambhani said. Only at the stage when charges are framed does the court apply its judicial mind to whether there is enough evidence on record to frame a precise allegation, which the accused must answer."Therefore, it is only once charges are framed that the accused knows exactly what he is alleged to be guilty of; and therefore, what guilt he is required to rebut," he said, adding an accused cannot be asked to disprove his guilt even before the foundational allegations with supporting evidence that suggest guilt are placed by the prosecution before the court.Q. Article 14 ensuring right to equality is applicable to

The golden rule that runs through the web of civilised criminal jurisprudence is that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless he is found guilty of the charged offence. As stated in V. D. Jhingan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1966 SC 1762, it is also the cardinal rule of our criminal jurisprudence that the burden in the web of proof of an offence would always lie upon the prosecution to prove all the facts constituting the ingredients beyond reasonable doubt.But in Veeraswamy Case [(1991) 3 SCC 655] the Constitution Bench held that “a statute placing burden on the accused cannot be regarded as unreasonable, unjust or unfair. Nor it can be regarded as contrary to Art.21 of the Constitution as contended for the appellant. The principle is applied only in the absence of statutory provision to the contrary”. As observed in State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar and Others, [2000 (8) SCC 382] that “the pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The Concept of “reverse burden” has been adopted in many statutes like Negotiable Instruments Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act etc. In Indian Evidence Act, Section 113A (for S.306 IPC) and Section 113B (for 304B IPC) places a reverse burden on the accused.For instance Section 113B in the Evidence Act which provides for raising a presumption as to dowry death in case of an unnatural death within seven years of marriage when it is shown that a woman was subjected to harassment for dowry soon before her death. Presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act is a presumption of law. On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death.The presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following essentials (1) The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. (3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. (4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.Usually the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused can be charged with that certain crime. In the reverse burden of proof the question now arises whether the accused has to discharge his burden beyond reasonable doubt the answer to which lies in preponderance of probabilities where the accused does not have to go as far as proving it beyond reasonable doubt; it is lesser in degree.Q. In case A is alleged to have caused dowry death of his wife B, 5 years after their marriage, the burden of proof lies on which party if the essentials for Section 113B have been met ?

The golden rule that runs through the web of civilised criminal jurisprudence is that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless he is found guilty of the charged offence. As stated in V. D. Jhingan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1966 SC 1762, it is also the cardinal rule of our criminal jurisprudence that the burden in the web of proof of an offence would always lie upon the prosecution to prove all the facts constituting the ingredients beyond reasonable doubt.But in Veeraswamy Case [(1991) 3 SCC 655] the Constitution Bench held that “a statute placing burden on the accused cannot be regarded as unreasonable, unjust or unfair. Nor it can be regarded as contrary to Art.21 of the Constitution as contended for the appellant. The principle is applied only in the absence of statutory provision to the contrary”. As observed in State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar and Others, [2000 (8) SCC 382] that “the pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The Concept of “reverse burden” has been adopted in many statutes like Negotiable Instruments Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act etc. In Indian Evidence Act, Section 113A (for S.306 IPC) and Section 113B (for 304B IPC) places a reverse burden on the accused.For instance Section 113B in the Evidence Act which provides for raising a presumption as to dowry death in case of an unnatural death within seven years of marriage when it is shown that a woman was subjected to harassment for dowry soon before her death. Presumption under Section 113B of Indian Evidence Act is a presumption of law. On proof of the essentials mentioned therein, it becomes obligatory on the court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the dowry death.The presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following essentials (1) The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. (3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. (4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.Usually the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused can be charged with that certain crime. In the reverse burden of proof the question now arises whether the accused has to discharge his burden beyond reasonable doubt the answer to which lies in preponderance of probabilities where the accused does not have to go as far as proving it beyond reasonable doubt; it is lesser in degree.Q. In the case that the police found narcotics in the possession of Ram Singh, which are illegal, based on information given in the passage, who do you infer has the burden of proof as per the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act?

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under the POCSO Act, Section 29 and 30 deals with reverse onus clauses. Section 29 states that whenever a person is prosecuted for committing, abetting to commit or attempting to commit an offence under Sections 3,5,7 and 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall presume that the offence has been committed, abetting or attempted to commit the offence unless the accused can prove to the contrary. Section 30 deals with presumption of culpability of the mental state of the accused with regards to any offence committed under the POCSO Act until the defence proves it otherwise. Further, subclause (2) states that the defence has to prove the innocence of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and not on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.Under principles of procedural fairness in the common law the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Until this is proved, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. The pair of presumptions lead to the commencement of proceedings against the accused with a presumption of guilt. Therefore, it is the prosecution which should prove the concurrent presence of mens rea and actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt. This reverse burden on the accused to prove his innocence was incorporated in the POCSO Act keeping in view the low conviction rate of sexual offences against children.Right to equality as envisaged under article 14 of the constitution encompasses both- Right to equality and equality of opportunity. The equals have to be treated equally and differentiation can only be made on the basis of intelligible differentia having a nexus with the object of the legislation. Article 14 pervades Article 21 and something which is not a valid procedure under Article 14 will automatically not be a fair procedure under Article 21. . The procedure established by law which can be used to curtail the freedom under these section has to be fair, just and reasonable, and non-arbitrary.The Legislature was aware that there were chances of false accusation and hence had put Section 22 of the POCSO which punishes the persons who falsely accuse the other of offences under the Act.Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani clarified that if a bail plea is being considered before charges have been framed, Section 29 has no application. 'Trial' commences when charges are framed against an accused and not before that, Justice Bhambhani said. Only at the stage when charges are framed does the court apply its judicial mind to whether there is enough evidence on record to frame a precise allegation, which the accused must answer."Therefore, it is only once charges are framed that the accused knows exactly what he is alleged to be guilty of; and therefore, what guilt he is required to rebut," he said, adding an accused cannot be asked to disprove his guilt even before the foundational allegations with supporting evidence that suggest guilt are placed by the prosecution before the court.Q. Mr. Animesh is a neighbour of the Roy family and shares a good relation with them. One evening the Roys went out for an invitation and kept their only daughter Janvi aged about 5 years in custody of Mr. Animesh for a few hours. Mr. Animesh tried to touch the genitals of the child when she felt. uncomfortable, he slapped her. Janvi later told the incident to her mother who lodged police complaint.a)Court shall presume that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.b)Court shall not presume that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.c)Court shall presume only after prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.d)None.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under the POCSO Act, Section 29 and 30 deals with reverse onus clauses. Section 29 states that whenever a person is prosecuted for committing, abetting to commit or attempting to commit an offence under Sections 3,5,7 and 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall presume that the offence has been committed, abetting or attempted to commit the offence unless the accused can prove to the contrary. Section 30 deals with presumption of culpability of the mental state of the accused with regards to any offence committed under the POCSO Act until the defence proves it otherwise. Further, subclause (2) states that the defence has to prove the innocence of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and not on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.Under principles of procedural fairness in the common law the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Until this is proved, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. The pair of presumptions lead to the commencement of proceedings against the accused with a presumption of guilt. Therefore, it is the prosecution which should prove the concurrent presence of mens rea and actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt. This reverse burden on the accused to prove his innocence was incorporated in the POCSO Act keeping in view the low conviction rate of sexual offences against children.Right to equality as envisaged under article 14 of the constitution encompasses both- Right to equality and equality of opportunity. The equals have to be treated equally and differentiation can only be made on the basis of intelligible differentia having a nexus with the object of the legislation. Article 14 pervades Article 21 and something which is not a valid procedure under Article 14 will automatically not be a fair procedure under Article 21. . The procedure established by law which can be used to curtail the freedom under these section has to be fair, just and reasonable, and non-arbitrary.The Legislature was aware that there were chances of false accusation and hence had put Section 22 of the POCSO which punishes the persons who falsely accuse the other of offences under the Act.Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani clarified that if a bail plea is being considered before charges have been framed, Section 29 has no application. 'Trial' commences when charges are framed against an accused and not before that, Justice Bhambhani said. Only at the stage when charges are framed does the court apply its judicial mind to whether there is enough evidence on record to frame a precise allegation, which the accused must answer."Therefore, it is only once charges are framed that the accused knows exactly what he is alleged to be guilty of; and therefore, what guilt he is required to rebut," he said, adding an accused cannot be asked to disprove his guilt even before the foundational allegations with supporting evidence that suggest guilt are placed by the prosecution before the court.Q. Mr. Animesh is a neighbour of the Roy family and shares a good relation with them. One evening the Roys went out for an invitation and kept their only daughter Janvi aged about 5 years in custody of Mr. Animesh for a few hours. Mr. Animesh tried to touch the genitals of the child when she felt. uncomfortable, he slapped her. Janvi later told the incident to her mother who lodged police complaint.a)Court shall presume that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.b)Court shall not presume that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.c)Court shall presume only after prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.d)None.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under the POCSO Act, Section 29 and 30 deals with reverse onus clauses. Section 29 states that whenever a person is prosecuted for committing, abetting to commit or attempting to commit an offence under Sections 3,5,7 and 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall presume that the offence has been committed, abetting or attempted to commit the offence unless the accused can prove to the contrary. Section 30 deals with presumption of culpability of the mental state of the accused with regards to any offence committed under the POCSO Act until the defence proves it otherwise. Further, subclause (2) states that the defence has to prove the innocence of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and not on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.Under principles of procedural fairness in the common law the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Until this is proved, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. The pair of presumptions lead to the commencement of proceedings against the accused with a presumption of guilt. Therefore, it is the prosecution which should prove the concurrent presence of mens rea and actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt. This reverse burden on the accused to prove his innocence was incorporated in the POCSO Act keeping in view the low conviction rate of sexual offences against children.Right to equality as envisaged under article 14 of the constitution encompasses both- Right to equality and equality of opportunity. The equals have to be treated equally and differentiation can only be made on the basis of intelligible differentia having a nexus with the object of the legislation. Article 14 pervades Article 21 and something which is not a valid procedure under Article 14 will automatically not be a fair procedure under Article 21. . The procedure established by law which can be used to curtail the freedom under these section has to be fair, just and reasonable, and non-arbitrary.The Legislature was aware that there were chances of false accusation and hence had put Section 22 of the POCSO which punishes the persons who falsely accuse the other of offences under the Act.Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani clarified that if a bail plea is being considered before charges have been framed, Section 29 has no application. 'Trial' commences when charges are framed against an accused and not before that, Justice Bhambhani said. Only at the stage when charges are framed does the court apply its judicial mind to whether there is enough evidence on record to frame a precise allegation, which the accused must answer."Therefore, it is only once charges are framed that the accused knows exactly what he is alleged to be guilty of; and therefore, what guilt he is required to rebut," he said, adding an accused cannot be asked to disprove his guilt even before the foundational allegations with supporting evidence that suggest guilt are placed by the prosecution before the court.Q. Mr. Animesh is a neighbour of the Roy family and shares a good relation with them. One evening the Roys went out for an invitation and kept their only daughter Janvi aged about 5 years in custody of Mr. Animesh for a few hours. Mr. Animesh tried to touch the genitals of the child when she felt. uncomfortable, he slapped her. Janvi later told the incident to her mother who lodged police complaint.a)Court shall presume that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.b)Court shall not presume that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.c)Court shall presume only after prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.d)None.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under the POCSO Act, Section 29 and 30 deals with reverse onus clauses. Section 29 states that whenever a person is prosecuted for committing, abetting to commit or attempting to commit an offence under Sections 3,5,7 and 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall presume that the offence has been committed, abetting or attempted to commit the offence unless the accused can prove to the contrary. Section 30 deals with presumption of culpability of the mental state of the accused with regards to any offence committed under the POCSO Act until the defence proves it otherwise. Further, subclause (2) states that the defence has to prove the innocence of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and not on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.Under principles of procedural fairness in the common law the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Until this is proved, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. The pair of presumptions lead to the commencement of proceedings against the accused with a presumption of guilt. Therefore, it is the prosecution which should prove the concurrent presence of mens rea and actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt. This reverse burden on the accused to prove his innocence was incorporated in the POCSO Act keeping in view the low conviction rate of sexual offences against children.Right to equality as envisaged under article 14 of the constitution encompasses both- Right to equality and equality of opportunity. The equals have to be treated equally and differentiation can only be made on the basis of intelligible differentia having a nexus with the object of the legislation. Article 14 pervades Article 21 and something which is not a valid procedure under Article 14 will automatically not be a fair procedure under Article 21. . The procedure established by law which can be used to curtail the freedom under these section has to be fair, just and reasonable, and non-arbitrary.The Legislature was aware that there were chances of false accusation and hence had put Section 22 of the POCSO which punishes the persons who falsely accuse the other of offences under the Act.Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani clarified that if a bail plea is being considered before charges have been framed, Section 29 has no application. 'Trial' commences when charges are framed against an accused and not before that, Justice Bhambhani said. Only at the stage when charges are framed does the court apply its judicial mind to whether there is enough evidence on record to frame a precise allegation, which the accused must answer."Therefore, it is only once charges are framed that the accused knows exactly what he is alleged to be guilty of; and therefore, what guilt he is required to rebut," he said, adding an accused cannot be asked to disprove his guilt even before the foundational allegations with supporting evidence that suggest guilt are placed by the prosecution before the court.Q. Mr. Animesh is a neighbour of the Roy family and shares a good relation with them. One evening the Roys went out for an invitation and kept their only daughter Janvi aged about 5 years in custody of Mr. Animesh for a few hours. Mr. Animesh tried to touch the genitals of the child when she felt. uncomfortable, he slapped her. Janvi later told the incident to her mother who lodged police complaint.a)Court shall presume that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.b)Court shall not presume that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.c)Court shall presume only after prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.d)None.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under the POCSO Act, Section 29 and 30 deals with reverse onus clauses. Section 29 states that whenever a person is prosecuted for committing, abetting to commit or attempting to commit an offence under Sections 3,5,7 and 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall presume that the offence has been committed, abetting or attempted to commit the offence unless the accused can prove to the contrary. Section 30 deals with presumption of culpability of the mental state of the accused with regards to any offence committed under the POCSO Act until the defence proves it otherwise. Further, subclause (2) states that the defence has to prove the innocence of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and not on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.Under principles of procedural fairness in the common law the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Until this is proved, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. The pair of presumptions lead to the commencement of proceedings against the accused with a presumption of guilt. Therefore, it is the prosecution which should prove the concurrent presence of mens rea and actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt. This reverse burden on the accused to prove his innocence was incorporated in the POCSO Act keeping in view the low conviction rate of sexual offences against children.Right to equality as envisaged under article 14 of the constitution encompasses both- Right to equality and equality of opportunity. The equals have to be treated equally and differentiation can only be made on the basis of intelligible differentia having a nexus with the object of the legislation. Article 14 pervades Article 21 and something which is not a valid procedure under Article 14 will automatically not be a fair procedure under Article 21. . The procedure established by law which can be used to curtail the freedom under these section has to be fair, just and reasonable, and non-arbitrary.The Legislature was aware that there were chances of false accusation and hence had put Section 22 of the POCSO which punishes the persons who falsely accuse the other of offences under the Act.Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani clarified that if a bail plea is being considered before charges have been framed, Section 29 has no application. 'Trial' commences when charges are framed against an accused and not before that, Justice Bhambhani said. Only at the stage when charges are framed does the court apply its judicial mind to whether there is enough evidence on record to frame a precise allegation, which the accused must answer."Therefore, it is only once charges are framed that the accused knows exactly what he is alleged to be guilty of; and therefore, what guilt he is required to rebut," he said, adding an accused cannot be asked to disprove his guilt even before the foundational allegations with supporting evidence that suggest guilt are placed by the prosecution before the court.Q. Mr. Animesh is a neighbour of the Roy family and shares a good relation with them. One evening the Roys went out for an invitation and kept their only daughter Janvi aged about 5 years in custody of Mr. Animesh for a few hours. Mr. Animesh tried to touch the genitals of the child when she felt. uncomfortable, he slapped her. Janvi later told the incident to her mother who lodged police complaint.a)Court shall presume that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.b)Court shall not presume that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.c)Court shall presume only after prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.d)None.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under the POCSO Act, Section 29 and 30 deals with reverse onus clauses. Section 29 states that whenever a person is prosecuted for committing, abetting to commit or attempting to commit an offence under Sections 3,5,7 and 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall presume that the offence has been committed, abetting or attempted to commit the offence unless the accused can prove to the contrary. Section 30 deals with presumption of culpability of the mental state of the accused with regards to any offence committed under the POCSO Act until the defence proves it otherwise. Further, subclause (2) states that the defence has to prove the innocence of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and not on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.Under principles of procedural fairness in the common law the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Until this is proved, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. The pair of presumptions lead to the commencement of proceedings against the accused with a presumption of guilt. Therefore, it is the prosecution which should prove the concurrent presence of mens rea and actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt. This reverse burden on the accused to prove his innocence was incorporated in the POCSO Act keeping in view the low conviction rate of sexual offences against children.Right to equality as envisaged under article 14 of the constitution encompasses both- Right to equality and equality of opportunity. The equals have to be treated equally and differentiation can only be made on the basis of intelligible differentia having a nexus with the object of the legislation. Article 14 pervades Article 21 and something which is not a valid procedure under Article 14 will automatically not be a fair procedure under Article 21. . The procedure established by law which can be used to curtail the freedom under these section has to be fair, just and reasonable, and non-arbitrary.The Legislature was aware that there were chances of false accusation and hence had put Section 22 of the POCSO which punishes the persons who falsely accuse the other of offences under the Act.Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani clarified that if a bail plea is being considered before charges have been framed, Section 29 has no application. 'Trial' commences when charges are framed against an accused and not before that, Justice Bhambhani said. Only at the stage when charges are framed does the court apply its judicial mind to whether there is enough evidence on record to frame a precise allegation, which the accused must answer."Therefore, it is only once charges are framed that the accused knows exactly what he is alleged to be guilty of; and therefore, what guilt he is required to rebut," he said, adding an accused cannot be asked to disprove his guilt even before the foundational allegations with supporting evidence that suggest guilt are placed by the prosecution before the court.Q. Mr. Animesh is a neighbour of the Roy family and shares a good relation with them. One evening the Roys went out for an invitation and kept their only daughter Janvi aged about 5 years in custody of Mr. Animesh for a few hours. Mr. Animesh tried to touch the genitals of the child when she felt. uncomfortable, he slapped her. Janvi later told the incident to her mother who lodged police complaint.a)Court shall presume that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.b)Court shall not presume that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.c)Court shall presume only after prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.d)None.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under the POCSO Act, Section 29 and 30 deals with reverse onus clauses. Section 29 states that whenever a person is prosecuted for committing, abetting to commit or attempting to commit an offence under Sections 3,5,7 and 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall presume that the offence has been committed, abetting or attempted to commit the offence unless the accused can prove to the contrary. Section 30 deals with presumption of culpability of the mental state of the accused with regards to any offence committed under the POCSO Act until the defence proves it otherwise. Further, subclause (2) states that the defence has to prove the innocence of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and not on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.Under principles of procedural fairness in the common law the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Until this is proved, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. The pair of presumptions lead to the commencement of proceedings against the accused with a presumption of guilt. Therefore, it is the prosecution which should prove the concurrent presence of mens rea and actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt. This reverse burden on the accused to prove his innocence was incorporated in the POCSO Act keeping in view the low conviction rate of sexual offences against children.Right to equality as envisaged under article 14 of the constitution encompasses both- Right to equality and equality of opportunity. The equals have to be treated equally and differentiation can only be made on the basis of intelligible differentia having a nexus with the object of the legislation. Article 14 pervades Article 21 and something which is not a valid procedure under Article 14 will automatically not be a fair procedure under Article 21. . The procedure established by law which can be used to curtail the freedom under these section has to be fair, just and reasonable, and non-arbitrary.The Legislature was aware that there were chances of false accusation and hence had put Section 22 of the POCSO which punishes the persons who falsely accuse the other of offences under the Act.Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani clarified that if a bail plea is being considered before charges have been framed, Section 29 has no application. 'Trial' commences when charges are framed against an accused and not before that, Justice Bhambhani said. Only at the stage when charges are framed does the court apply its judicial mind to whether there is enough evidence on record to frame a precise allegation, which the accused must answer."Therefore, it is only once charges are framed that the accused knows exactly what he is alleged to be guilty of; and therefore, what guilt he is required to rebut," he said, adding an accused cannot be asked to disprove his guilt even before the foundational allegations with supporting evidence that suggest guilt are placed by the prosecution before the court.Q. Mr. Animesh is a neighbour of the Roy family and shares a good relation with them. One evening the Roys went out for an invitation and kept their only daughter Janvi aged about 5 years in custody of Mr. Animesh for a few hours. Mr. Animesh tried to touch the genitals of the child when she felt. uncomfortable, he slapped her. Janvi later told the incident to her mother who lodged police complaint.a)Court shall presume that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.b)Court shall not presume that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.c)Court shall presume only after prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.d)None.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under the POCSO Act, Section 29 and 30 deals with reverse onus clauses. Section 29 states that whenever a person is prosecuted for committing, abetting to commit or attempting to commit an offence under Sections 3,5,7 and 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall presume that the offence has been committed, abetting or attempted to commit the offence unless the accused can prove to the contrary. Section 30 deals with presumption of culpability of the mental state of the accused with regards to any offence committed under the POCSO Act until the defence proves it otherwise. Further, subclause (2) states that the defence has to prove the innocence of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and not on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.Under principles of procedural fairness in the common law the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Until this is proved, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. The pair of presumptions lead to the commencement of proceedings against the accused with a presumption of guilt. Therefore, it is the prosecution which should prove the concurrent presence of mens rea and actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt. This reverse burden on the accused to prove his innocence was incorporated in the POCSO Act keeping in view the low conviction rate of sexual offences against children.Right to equality as envisaged under article 14 of the constitution encompasses both- Right to equality and equality of opportunity. The equals have to be treated equally and differentiation can only be made on the basis of intelligible differentia having a nexus with the object of the legislation. Article 14 pervades Article 21 and something which is not a valid procedure under Article 14 will automatically not be a fair procedure under Article 21. . The procedure established by law which can be used to curtail the freedom under these section has to be fair, just and reasonable, and non-arbitrary.The Legislature was aware that there were chances of false accusation and hence had put Section 22 of the POCSO which punishes the persons who falsely accuse the other of offences under the Act.Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani clarified that if a bail plea is being considered before charges have been framed, Section 29 has no application. 'Trial' commences when charges are framed against an accused and not before that, Justice Bhambhani said. Only at the stage when charges are framed does the court apply its judicial mind to whether there is enough evidence on record to frame a precise allegation, which the accused must answer."Therefore, it is only once charges are framed that the accused knows exactly what he is alleged to be guilty of; and therefore, what guilt he is required to rebut," he said, adding an accused cannot be asked to disprove his guilt even before the foundational allegations with supporting evidence that suggest guilt are placed by the prosecution before the court.Q. Mr. Animesh is a neighbour of the Roy family and shares a good relation with them. One evening the Roys went out for an invitation and kept their only daughter Janvi aged about 5 years in custody of Mr. Animesh for a few hours. Mr. Animesh tried to touch the genitals of the child when she felt. uncomfortable, he slapped her. Janvi later told the incident to her mother who lodged police complaint.a)Court shall presume that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.b)Court shall not presume that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.c)Court shall presume only after prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.d)None.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under the POCSO Act, Section 29 and 30 deals with reverse onus clauses. Section 29 states that whenever a person is prosecuted for committing, abetting to commit or attempting to commit an offence under Sections 3,5,7 and 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall presume that the offence has been committed, abetting or attempted to commit the offence unless the accused can prove to the contrary. Section 30 deals with presumption of culpability of the mental state of the accused with regards to any offence committed under the POCSO Act until the defence proves it otherwise. Further, subclause (2) states that the defence has to prove the innocence of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and not on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.Under principles of procedural fairness in the common law the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Until this is proved, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. The pair of presumptions lead to the commencement of proceedings against the accused with a presumption of guilt. Therefore, it is the prosecution which should prove the concurrent presence of mens rea and actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt. This reverse burden on the accused to prove his innocence was incorporated in the POCSO Act keeping in view the low conviction rate of sexual offences against children.Right to equality as envisaged under article 14 of the constitution encompasses both- Right to equality and equality of opportunity. The equals have to be treated equally and differentiation can only be made on the basis of intelligible differentia having a nexus with the object of the legislation. Article 14 pervades Article 21 and something which is not a valid procedure under Article 14 will automatically not be a fair procedure under Article 21. . The procedure established by law which can be used to curtail the freedom under these section has to be fair, just and reasonable, and non-arbitrary.The Legislature was aware that there were chances of false accusation and hence had put Section 22 of the POCSO which punishes the persons who falsely accuse the other of offences under the Act.Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani clarified that if a bail plea is being considered before charges have been framed, Section 29 has no application. 'Trial' commences when charges are framed against an accused and not before that, Justice Bhambhani said. Only at the stage when charges are framed does the court apply its judicial mind to whether there is enough evidence on record to frame a precise allegation, which the accused must answer."Therefore, it is only once charges are framed that the accused knows exactly what he is alleged to be guilty of; and therefore, what guilt he is required to rebut," he said, adding an accused cannot be asked to disprove his guilt even before the foundational allegations with supporting evidence that suggest guilt are placed by the prosecution before the court.Q. Mr. Animesh is a neighbour of the Roy family and shares a good relation with them. One evening the Roys went out for an invitation and kept their only daughter Janvi aged about 5 years in custody of Mr. Animesh for a few hours. Mr. Animesh tried to touch the genitals of the child when she felt. uncomfortable, he slapped her. Janvi later told the incident to her mother who lodged police complaint.a)Court shall presume that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.b)Court shall not presume that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.c)Court shall presume only after prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.d)None.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.Under the POCSO Act, Section 29 and 30 deals with reverse onus clauses. Section 29 states that whenever a person is prosecuted for committing, abetting to commit or attempting to commit an offence under Sections 3,5,7 and 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall presume that the offence has been committed, abetting or attempted to commit the offence unless the accused can prove to the contrary. Section 30 deals with presumption of culpability of the mental state of the accused with regards to any offence committed under the POCSO Act until the defence proves it otherwise. Further, subclause (2) states that the defence has to prove the innocence of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and not on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.Under principles of procedural fairness in the common law the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Until this is proved, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. The pair of presumptions lead to the commencement of proceedings against the accused with a presumption of guilt. Therefore, it is the prosecution which should prove the concurrent presence of mens rea and actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt. This reverse burden on the accused to prove his innocence was incorporated in the POCSO Act keeping in view the low conviction rate of sexual offences against children.Right to equality as envisaged under article 14 of the constitution encompasses both- Right to equality and equality of opportunity. The equals have to be treated equally and differentiation can only be made on the basis of intelligible differentia having a nexus with the object of the legislation. Article 14 pervades Article 21 and something which is not a valid procedure under Article 14 will automatically not be a fair procedure under Article 21. . The procedure established by law which can be used to curtail the freedom under these section has to be fair, just and reasonable, and non-arbitrary.The Legislature was aware that there were chances of false accusation and hence had put Section 22 of the POCSO which punishes the persons who falsely accuse the other of offences under the Act.Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani clarified that if a bail plea is being considered before charges have been framed, Section 29 has no application. 'Trial' commences when charges are framed against an accused and not before that, Justice Bhambhani said. Only at the stage when charges are framed does the court apply its judicial mind to whether there is enough evidence on record to frame a precise allegation, which the accused must answer."Therefore, it is only once charges are framed that the accused knows exactly what he is alleged to be guilty of; and therefore, what guilt he is required to rebut," he said, adding an accused cannot be asked to disprove his guilt even before the foundational allegations with supporting evidence that suggest guilt are placed by the prosecution before the court.Q. Mr. Animesh is a neighbour of the Roy family and shares a good relation with them. One evening the Roys went out for an invitation and kept their only daughter Janvi aged about 5 years in custody of Mr. Animesh for a few hours. Mr. Animesh tried to touch the genitals of the child when she felt. uncomfortable, he slapped her. Janvi later told the incident to her mother who lodged police complaint.a)Court shall presume that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.b)Court shall not presume that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.c)Court shall presume only after prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Animesh has committed an offense under POSCO Act.d)None.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup