Is the Section 29 presumption under the POCSO Act absolute, even before foundational facts are established?
Coram: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra · Justice N.V. Anjaria
The presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act is not absolute and operates only after the prosecution establishes the foundational facts.
No. The presumptions in Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act are not absolute presumptions; they come into operation only when the prosecution first establishes the foundational facts, and they are rebuttable, so the courts are not absolved from their essential duty to analyse the evidence and must not mechanically accept the prosecution version. Here the presumption stood rebutted as the ocular, medical and forensic evidence was contradictory.
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — ss.29, 30 — Statutory Presumption — Reverse Burden — Preponderance Of Probability — Sterling Witness — Acquittal — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — ss.29, 30 — Presumption Rebuttable, Not Absolute — Held: The presumptions in Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act are not absolute and operate only once the prosecution establishes the foundational facts. Courts must still weigh the evidence with the usual principles. (¶7) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s.29 — Standard Of Proof — Beyond Reasonable Doubt — Held further: Even with a reverse burden, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, while the accused rebuts on a preponderance of probability, including by showing gaps and mismatch of ocular and medical evidence. (¶7) Evidence — Sole Testimony Of Prosecutrix — Sterling Witness — Consistency From Initial Statement — Held further: Sole evidence can prove the offence only if the witness is sterling, consistent from the initial statement to the court and matching the scientific evidence. Appeals allowed; appellant acquitted. (¶5, 10)
Headnote
You've used your free headnotes this month
The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.
Create my free accountOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of DEEPAK IN JC v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT DELHI — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India