‘Prosecution Version Cannot Be Gospel Truth’: Supreme Court On Sections 29, 30 POCSO Act Presumption Of Guilt

The Supreme Court has said that the statutory presumption of guilt under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act does not mean that the prosecution version has to be treated as gospel truth in every case.

A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria said courts must undertake an objective assessment of evidence even in cases where Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act operate against the accused. The provisions, it said, cannot be allowed to override the principles of fair trial or the requirement that guilt must ultimately be established beyond reasonable doubt.

Section 29 of the POCSO Act presumes the accused’s guilt for certain POCSO offences once the prosecution establishes the basic facts of the case. Section 30 presumes a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, unless the accused proves otherwise.

Court made the observations while setting aside the conviction of Deepak under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code [now Section 137 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)] and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The Supreme Court said the presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act are not absolute.

"When an issue concerning the liberty of an individual is involved to be dealt with in law, the court has to be extra careful and cautious," the Bench said.

Court said that while the statutory presumption may operate at the initial stage of the trial and shift the onus onto the accused, it cannot influence the court into leaning towards the prosecution while assessing the evidence.

"The court is not expected to influence itself by the existence of presumptive provision so as to lean towards the prosecution while analysing and interpreting the evidence," the Bench said.

Once the prosecution case is found to have evidential gaps, lacks credibility or borders on perversity, the presumption of guilt would no longer remain effective, it added.

The Bench said the normal standards and yardsticks governing appreciation of criminal evidence must continue to apply notwithstanding the statutory presumption.

How does the reverse burden under the POCSO Act operate?

Court explained that Section 29 operates after the prosecution establishes the basic and foundational facts constituting the offence. At that stage, it is presumed that the accused has committed, abetted or attempted to commit the offence unless the contrary is proved by him.

Thus, the prosecution first has to establish the essential facts constituting the offence, following which the evidential burden shifts to the accused.

The accused can rebut the presumption by offering an explanation which might reasonably be true and is consistent with his defence of innocence.

However, the degree and character of proof expected from the accused cannot be equated with the burden on the prosecution. The prosecution must invariably establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Court reiterated that if two views are possible on the evidence, one pointing towards guilt and the other towards innocence, the view favouring the accused should be adopted.

This, it said, is part of the fundamental principle of criminal law that guilt has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and not on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.

What can an accused rely on to rebut the POCSO presumption?

The Supreme Court said an accused can rebut the presumption by exposing inherent inconsistencies or contradictions in the prosecution evidence.

This may include pointing out absurdities or gaps in the prosecution story, absence of proof of relevant facts, mismatch between ocular and medical evidence, and lack of corroboration between different pieces of evidence.

Court stressed that the statutory presumption does not absolve judges of their duty to analyse the evidence in the context of the particular case.

"The court should not mechanically accept the ipse dixit of the prosecution riding on the provisions regarding presumption of guilt to give a stamp of approval to every prosecution even if they are absurd or improbable in its story," the Bench said.

It described the reverse burden under such provisions as an additional weapon in the prosecution's armoury, but said the accused could thwart its operation by leading evidence to the contrary.

"Differently stated, the presumption of commission of offence or the presumption of culpability mental state are rebuttable presumptions," the Bench said.

Court noted that similar provisions creating presumptions or reverse burdens are found in several other statutes, including the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Wild Life (Protection) Act, the Customs Act, the Foreign Exchange Management Act and the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Why did the Supreme Court acquit the accused?

The case arose from an FIR lodged at Kalkaji police station in Delhi on December 11, 2015. It was alleged that Deepak had taken his 2.5-year-old neighbour's daughter to a park and committed penetrative sexual assault against her under the POCSO Act.

The trial court convicted him under Section 363 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to 10 years' imprisonment. The Delhi High Court later confirmed the conviction and sentence in its July 3, 2025 judgment.

The Supreme Court, however, found gaps in the testimony of the child's mother and contradictions between her evidence and that of other witnesses. It also noted inconsistencies involving the forensic science laboratory (FSL) and medical evidence.

The Bench further found the defence story regarding previous enmity over water from a common tap to be cogent and capable of undermining the prosecution case.

"The appellant-accused has been successful in rebutting the prosecution story," the Bench said.

It held that although Sections 29 and 30 had initially raised a presumption against Deepak, the prosecution evidence contained inconsistencies, improbabilities and material contradictions. The medical evidence was also non-corroborative, suggesting that the offence had not been committed by the appellant.

Court consequently held that the prosecution had failed to establish Deepak's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted him.

It set aside the Delhi High Court judgment and directed that Deepak be released if he was behind bars, unless required in any other case.

Case Title: Deepak in JC Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Bench: Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N V Anjaria 

Date of Judgment: September 17, 2026