𝕃𝔼𝔾𝔸𝕃 β„‚π•Œβ„β„π”Όβ„•π•‹ π”Έπ”½π”½π”Έπ•€β„π•Š 𝔹π•ͺ- ℕ𝕒π•₯𝕦𝕣𝕒𝕝 𝕁𝕦𝕀π•₯π•šπ•”π•– β„’
18.9K subscribers
831 photos
11 videos
1.64K files
2.94K links
πŸ“² Contact β†’ @CurrentLegalGKBOT

πŸ‘¨β€βš– Filtered Information Brings Clarity.

🌐THE BEST FROM ALL LEGAL UPDATES BY EOD.

"Finding Quintessence of all possible POVs of provisions and Precedents
_____________
🧠 Daily Quiz β†’ @LegalQuizzes

β³πŸš€ Enjoy Learning!
Download Telegram
𝕃𝔼𝔾𝔸𝕃 β„‚π•Œβ„β„π”Όβ„•π•‹ π”Έπ”½π”½π”Έπ•€β„π•Š 𝔹π•ͺ- ℕ𝕒π•₯𝕦𝕣𝕒𝕝 𝕁𝕦𝕀π•₯π•šπ•”π•– β„’
POCSO Act | Scholar Register Sufficient To Determine Victim's Age, Prosecution Testimonies Can't Be Disregarded For Trivial Contradictions: MP High Court https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court-rules-school-admission…
πŸ€• Appreciation evidence | Testimony of Injured Witness

Farid Khan v. The State of Madhya, 2024

It is well settled that criminal jurisprudence attaches great weightage to the evidence of a person injured in the incidence. Such a testimony comes with a in-built guarantee of truth, specially when it is a case of molestation or sexual assault…”, and held while also opining that an injured witness wouldn't let go of the actual culprit to trap an innocent person in criminal proceedings.

@CurrentLegalGK
❀2❀‍πŸ”₯2πŸ‘2πŸ’―2
✍️#Question@CurrentLegalGK

In the Rise of offences in Digital Media, do you think it is wise to have a different mechanism to club the FIR rather than wasting the time of most important court of the Nation via Art 32 for procedural matters.

@CurrentLegalGK
πŸ’―4πŸ‘1πŸŽ…1
1869420122025-02-24-588355 (1).pdf
692.9 KB
πŸ‘¨β€βš–οΈ State of Madhya Pradesh v. balveer Singh, 2025

βœ“ Evidence of Child Witness and Test for parsing Tutored Testimony.
βœ“ Principles of Law relating to appreciation of Circumstantial Evidence.
a. Incriminating Circumstances emerging from the evidence on record.
iii. Principles of Law governing the Applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act
iv. What is β€œprima facie case” (foundational facts) in the context of Section 106
of the Evidence Act
?

Important for POCSO foundational facts
@CurrentLegalGK
πŸ‘3
𝕃𝔼𝔾𝔸𝕃 β„‚π•Œβ„β„π”Όβ„•π•‹ π”Έπ”½π”½π”Έπ•€β„π•Š 𝔹π•ͺ- ℕ𝕒π•₯𝕦𝕣𝕒𝕝 𝕁𝕦𝕀π•₯π•šπ•”π•– β„’
Not Mandatory To Obtain Sanction To Prosecute Public Servant For Failing To Report POCSO Offences, S. 19 Contains Non-Obstante Clause: Kerala HC https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/kerala-high-court/kerala-high-court-sanction-not-mandatory-prosecute-public-servant…
β€œIt is true that as per Section 42A of POCSO Act the provisions of POCSO Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other case for the time being in force. But Section 42A of the POCSO Act to be read in exclusion of the provision where non-obstante clause is provided, for its applicability…When a non- obstante clause is used specifically in Section 19, as far as Sections 19 and 21 are concerned, Section 42A would not apply, thereby Section 197 of Cr.P.C or Section 218 of BNSS would not have any application to Section 19 r/w 21 of the POCSO Act. The precept of the discussion leads to hold that in order to prosecute a public servant for the offence under Section 21 r/w Section 19 of POCSO Act, sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C or under Section 218 of BNSS is not mandatory.”


Dr Ditto Tom P.
v
State of Kerala,
2025


218 BNSS not applicable in POCSO Cases, No sanction afainst public servants required
#POCSO@CurrentLegalGK
πŸ‘7πŸ‘Œ1πŸ’―1