Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 · Chapter VII: Special Courts
Section 30: Presumption of culpable mental state
(1) In any prosecution for any offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the Special Court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the Special Court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability.
Explanation.—In this section, "culpable mental state" includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact and the belief in, or reason to believe, a fact.
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 14 October 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 30
-
Jamnalal v. State of Rajasthan and Another
In the instant appeal, the father of the prosecutrix challenges the order of the High Court. By the said order, the sentence imposed on respondent no.2 herein was suspended till the final disposal of the appeal. Whether…
-
Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar v. State of Gujarat
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order of conviction and death sentence to the appellant for offences punishable u/ss.302, 364 and 377 IPC and ss. 4 and 6 of the POCSO, for committing murder and brutal…
-
Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. v. S. Harish & Ors.
What is the scope of Section 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO); what is the underlying distinction between sub-section(s) (1), (2) and (3) respectively of the POCSO; whether, mere…
- Dayanand v. State NCT of Delhi
- Veerpal @ Titu v. State
- Afsar Saifi Alias Sonu v. State NCT of Delhi
- State v. Nikhil Kumar
- Vicky v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi
- State of NCT of Delhi v. Sumer
- Shashim Das v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr
- Shekhawat v. State
- Deepak Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi
- Sonu@Billa v. State, Through Sho, Ps Paschim Vicar East
- Mohd Abid Hussain v. The State
- Akhilesh Arya v. State
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Pappu v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
- Attorney General for India v. Satish and Another