https://lawcutor.in/2026/08/07/delhi-high-court-acquits-pocso-convict-holds-trial-court-wrongly-applied-section-29-presumption-without-establishing-foundational-facts/Lawcutoren2026-08-07T12:38:48+00:00Delhi High Court Acquits POCSO Convict, Holds Trial Court Wrongly Applied Section 29 Presumption Without Establishing Foundational FactsLawcutor, Delhi high court, Legal Research, Indian judiciary, law students, BNSS 2023, Criminal appeal, Supreme Court Precedent, POCSO Act, Section 506 IPC, child sexual assault, child witness testimony, Delhi High Court judgment, wrongful conviction, proof beyond reasonable doubt, indian criminal law, Legal news India, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Call Detail Records, Section 376 IPC, criminal jurisprudence, Section 528 BNSS, appreciation of evidence, Criminal Trial, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, POCSO Case Law, Evidence Appreciation, Section 164 CrPC Statement, criminal law update, Criminal Defence, benefit of doubt, acquittal judgment, Justice Madhu Jain, Criminal Evidence, Indian Legal News., Material Contradictions, Presumption of Innocence, Reasonable Doubt, Contradictions in Evidence, Advocate Resources, Contradictory Statements, Defective Investigation, Judiciary Preparation, Case Law Update, Judicial Services Preparation, 2026 Delhi High Court, August 2026 Judgment, Vikash v State Govt of NCT Delhi, Vikash v State NCT Delhi, Nirmal Kumar v State NCT of Delhi, CRL.A. 348/2026, Section 161 CrPC Statement, Section 30 POCSO Act, POCSO Presumption, Presumption Under Section 29, Delhi High Court Acquittal, Foundational Facts POCSO, Evidence in Sexual Offence Cases, Sexual Assault Evidence, Madhu Jain Delhi High Court, Foundational Facts, Consent of Minor, POCSO Judgment 2026, Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault, Section 366 IPC, Prosecution Burden of Proof, Section 415 BNSS, Section 29 POCSO Act, Lack of Corroborative Evidence, Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, Section 5(l) POCSO Act, Fast Track Special Court POCSO, Rohini Courts, Statutory Presumption POCSO, Section 29 Presumption Not Automatic, Trial Court Testimony, Appellate Court Acquittal, POCSO Trial Court, Evidentiary Burden, POCSO Supreme Court Cases, POCSO Acquittal, Credibility of Prosecutrix, POCSO Conviction Set Aside, Debraj Dutta POCSO Case, Section 506(II) IPC, Site Plan, Sexual Offence Jurisprudence, Improvements in Testimony, Minor Consent POCSO, Investigative Lapses, Section 376(2)(n) IPC, Section 5 POCSO Act, Inconsistent Statement of Prosecutrix, Alamelu v State, POCSO Criminal Appeal, Reverse Onus Clause, Evidentiary Inconsistencies, Trial Court Conviction Reversed, POCSO Defence, Survivor Testimony, Reverse Burden POCSO, POCSO Law Update, Prosecution Must Establish Foundational Facts, Missing Witnesses, Delhi High Court Criminal Appeal, State of Uttarakhand v Sanjay Ram Tamta, POCSO Jurisprudence, Section 164 Statement, Section 29 POCSO Case Law, Improved Statement, Latest Delhi High Court Judgment, Prosecutrix Testimony, Section 6 POCSO Act, Supreme Court POCSO Judgment, Latest Case Law, Reverse Burden of Proof, CDR Evidence, Burden of Proof POCSO, Debraj Dutta v State of West Bengal, Credibility of Witness, Foundational Facts Before Presumption, Nirmal Kumar POCSO Judgment, Delhi High Court Legal News, Section 161 Statementhttps://lawcutor.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/website-2026-08-07t180412.315.png?w=150https://lawcutor.in/2026/08/07/rajasthan-high-court-takes-suo-motu-cognizance-after-woman-denied-parole-for-her-own-illness-dies-in-jail/Lawcutoren2026-08-07T12:06:25+00:00Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance After Woman Denied Parole for Her Own Illness Dies in JailLawcutor, article 21, Criminal Law, public interest, prison authorities, Constitutional Law, personal liberty, Legal Research, rajasthan High court, compassionate grounds, Indian judiciary, law students, Judicial Intervention, Amicus Curiae, right to health, human dignity, Judicial Review, suo motu cognizance, Rajasthan Government, custodial death, Legal news India, Judicial Services, Writ Jurisdiction, Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur, constitutional remedies, Rajasthan High Court Judgment, Indian Legal News, legal update 2026, Rajasthan legal news, latest Rajasthan High Court judgment, Right to Life, Criminal Justice System, Prisoners Rights, Prison Reforms, Human Rights of Prisoners, Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Advocate Resources, Judiciary Preparation, High Court Case Law, State of Rajasthan, Case Law Update, August 2026 Judgment, DB Civil Writ Petition 16862/2026, Rajasthan High Court Latest Order, Manju Devi v State of Rajasthan, Parole Rules Rajasthan, Central Jail Bikaner, Rule 11(1)(i), Parole for Illness, Prison Reform India, Prisoner Treatment, Suo Motu Public Interest, Prisoner Parole, Custodial Healthcare, Medical Emergency in Jail, Parole Denied, Death in Jail, Prison Litigation, Gap in Parole Rules, Judicial Oversight of Prisons, Right to Medical Treatment, Suo Motu Proceedings, Amendment of Parole Rules, Parole Judgment India, Sanjeet Purohit, Bikaner Central Jail, Near Relative Serious Illness, Emergency Parole, Prisoners Release Rules, Prisoner Welfare, District Magistrate Parole, Inmate Medical Care, Insensitive Parole Decision, Right to Dignity, Inmate Serious Illness, Healthcare in Prisons, Rajasthan Case Law, Prisoners Human Rights, Humanitarian Parole, Medical Negligence in Prison, Rajasthan High Court Suo Motu, Prisoner Healthcare Rights, Parole Rejected, Prison Administration Rajasthan, Parole Rules Amendment, Parole Application, Prisoner Medical Treatment, Jail Reforms, Bikaner Legal News, Denial of Parole, Custodial Rights, Emergent Parole Rajasthan, 2026 Rajasthan High Court, Jail Administration, Constitutional Rights of Prisoners, Medical Parole, Prison Law India, Prisoner Death, Jodhpur Legal News, Dignity of Prisoners, Rule 11(1)(i) Parole, Parole Jurisprudence, Justice Sanjeet Purohit, Jail Medical Facilities, State Duty Towards Prisoners, Sambhavi Mardia, Suo Motu Petition, Death of Prisoner, Compassionate Parole, Parole Law India, Correctional Administration, Prison Law Update, Medical Parole Judgment, Prison Healthcare, Parole Policy, District Magistrate Rajasthan, Rajasthan High Court Parole Judgment.https://lawcutor.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/website-2026-08-07t172804.265.png?w=150https://lawcutor.in/2026/08/07/delhi-high-court-settles-the-law-on-sanction-under-section-19-of-the-prevention-of-corruption-act-2018-amendment/Lawcutoren2026-08-07T11:49:59+00:00Delhi High Court Settles the Law on Sanction Under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 AmendmentLawcutor, Delhi high court, Constitutional Law, Legal Research, Indian judiciary, law students, Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 482 CrPC, Criminal Procedure, legal interpretation, landmark judgment, Delhi Legal News, prevention of corruption act 1988, Supreme Court precedents, Delhi High Court judgment, criminal law india, Legal news India, service law, judicial precedent, CBI Court, criminal jurisprudence, sanction for prosecution, pending criminal proceedings, statutory interpretation, public servant corruption, criminal procedure code, legal update 2026, criminal law update, Cognizance of Offence, Prosecution Sanction, Delhi High Court Latest Judgment, Section 7 PC Act, Corruption Cases, Anti Corruption Bureau, Anti Corruption Law, Prospective Application, Prospective Amendment, Advocate Resources, Judiciary Preparation, Government Employees, Corruption Law India, Section 19 PC Act, Section 19 Prevention of Corruption Act, Protection of Public Servants, Case Law Update, Court on its Own Motion v State, Delhi High Court Division Bench, Prior Sanction, Justice Ravinder Dudeja, Special Judge PC Act, Sanction to Prosecute, Retrospective Amendment, Former Public Servant, Government Officials, Public Servant Law, Pending Corruption Cases, Section 15 PC Act, PC Act 2018 Amendment, Dilawar Singh v Parvinder Singh, Prevention of Corruption Cases, Justice Navin Chawla, Retrospective Application, Curative Amendment, Judicial Services Preparation, Anti Corruption Cases India, Advocates India, Interpretation of Statutes, Sanction Under Section 19, Date of Cognizance, Public Servant Prosecution, Delhi High Court Case Law, 2026 Delhi High Court, Cognizance Before 26 July 2018, Special Statute, Parkash Singh Badal v State of Punjab, Corruption Law Update, Shyam Sunder, L Narayana Swamy v State of Karnataka, Beneficial Amendment, Latest Legal News India, Latest Legal Judgment, Indian Case Law, Hitendra Vishnu Thakur, Sanction for Former Public Servants, Zile Singh, Section 395 CrPC, Public Servant Sanction Judgment, Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant, Declaratory Statute, Statutory Protection, CBI Prosecution, S A Venkataraman v State, Cognizance After 26 July 2018, Division Bench Judgment, Tis Hazari Courts, Section 19 Amendment 2018, Vatika Township, CBI Cases, Special Court PC Act, Abhay Singh Chautala v CBI, August 2026 Judgment, R S Nayak v A R Antulay, Sanction Requirement, Criminal Law Amendment, 26 July 2018, Section 13 PC Act, Section 19 PC Act Judgment.https://lawcutor.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/website-2026-08-07t171535.383.png?w=150