POCSO Presumptions Need Foundational Facts: Supreme Court Acquits Man After Finding Prosecution Evidence Unreliable

Case at a glance: The Supreme Court has acquitted a man convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 363 IPC, holding that the statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 are rebuttable and arise only after the prosecution proves foundational facts. Finding material contradictions between the key witnesses, medical and forensic evidence that did not support the allegation, and a likely motive of enmity, it held that guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The case arose from an allegation in December 2015 concerning a child of about two and a half years in Delhi. The FIR was registered on 11 December 2015, two days after the alleged incident, and charges were framed under Sections 363 and 506 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The Special Court at Saket convicted the appellant on 21 August 2023 under Section 363 IPC and Section 6 POCSO, sentencing him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment, and acquitted him under Section 506 IPC.

The Delhi High Court dismissed his appeal on 3 July 2025. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the oral and medical evidence was contradictory and that the complaint was motivated by a quarrel between the two households over water sharing; the State argued that the discrepancies were not material.

The Key Question Before the Court

When can the presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act be applied, and what must the accused show to rebut them?

Credibility, Medical Evidence and Reverse Burdens

The Court found that the account of the child's mother and the private doctor she said she consulted conflicted on material points, including the time of the visit, and that the mother's account had improved at trial. No police witness confirmed the doctor's claim that he had called the police. The hospital examination and FSL report did not support the allegation, and the Court distinguished State of U.P. v. Babul Nath, (1994) 08 SC CK 0063 on that basis. Relying on Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 08 SC CK 0034 and Ganesan v. State, (2020) 10 SC CK 0026, it held the mother was not a “sterling witness” whose evidence could be accepted without corroboration, and noted her admission of quarrels over a shared water connection.

On the statutory presumptions, the Court explained that Sections 29 and 30 are rebuttable, reverse-burden provisions. The prosecution must first establish the foundational facts; the accused then need only rebut on a preponderance of probability, while the prosecution's burden remains proof beyond reasonable doubt. Drawing on decisions including Noor Aga, (2008) 07 SC CK 0069, V.D. Jhingan and Kali Ram, (1973) 09 SC CK 0026, it said the presumption cannot override fair-trial norms, and held that the appellant had rebutted it here.

What the Court Actually Held

• The presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act are rebuttable and arise only once foundational facts are proved.
• The accused may rebut them on a preponderance of probability; the prosecution's standard remains proof beyond reasonable doubt.
• The prosecution evidence was inconsistent and lacked credibility, and the appellant rebutted the presumptions.
• The conviction was set aside and the appellant acquitted under Section 363 IPC and Section 6 POCSO, with release if not required in any other case.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It reaffirms that POCSO presumptions do not dispense with proof of foundational facts.
• It sets out the standards for the prosecution and the accused under a reverse burden.
• It shows appellate courts will test the core witness's credibility even in cases involving very young children.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For the Defence

• Challenge whether the foundational facts were proved before the presumption is invoked.
• Lay a record of prior enmity and contradictions through cross-examination.

For Prosecutors

• Secure prompt reporting, consistent statements and proper medical documentation.
• Corroborate the key witness where her account is the main evidence.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

No. The prosecution must first prove foundational facts, and its standard remains proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The accused need only rebut the presumption on a preponderance of probability.

The Court found material contradictions and improvements, a lack of corroboration and a likely motive of enmity.

Conclusion

Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →