SUPREME COURT ON SECTION 29 OF POCSO: PRESUMPTION OF GUILT CANNOT REPLACE PROOF
INTRODUCTION
In Deepak in JC v. State Govt. of NCT Delhi, 2026 INSC 1008, the Supreme Court of India delivered an important Judgment on 17 September 2026. The Judgment was delivered by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria. The case concerned the interpretation and application of the presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The Supreme Court held that these provisions create a reverse burden on the accused, but they do not remove the prosecution’s basic duty to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
BRIEF FACTS
The Appellant, Deepak, was convicted by the Special Court under Section 363 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and was sentenced to imprisonment. The Delhi High Court later upheld the conviction.
The Prosecution alleged that the Appellant had taken a girl, aged about 2.5 years, to a nearby park without the knowledge of her mother. After returning home, the child allegedly complained of pain and the mother claimed to have noticed blood on her clothes. The matter was subsequently reported to the police.
The Prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of the child’s mother, the evidence of a doctor who had allegedly seen the child initially and the medical and forensic evidence.
However, the Supreme Court noticed several contradictions in the evidence. There was also a significant difference between the mother’s account and the doctor’s evidence regarding the time at which the child was brought to the doctor. The medical examination did not show any injury, while the FSL examination did not detect semen, male DNA or blood on the relevant exhibits.
ISSUES
The main issues before the Supreme Court were:
- Whether the Prosecution had proved the offences against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act could be applied without first establishing the basic facts of the alleged offence.
- Whether the statutory presumption could be treated as sufficient to sustain a conviction despite serious contradictions and contrary medical and forensic evidence.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court made an important distinction between a statutory presumption and an automatic presumption of guilt. Section 29 creates a presumption in certain POCSO prosecutions, while Section 30 deals with the presumption regarding the culpable mental state of the accused. However, these provisions do not mean that every allegation made by the Prosecution must automatically be accepted.
The Court observed that the presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 are rebuttable. They come into operation only after the prosecution establishes the foundational facts necessary for invoking the presumption. Therefore, the Prosecution cannot simply rely upon Section 29 to avoid proving the basic ingredients of the offence.
The Court further explained that the reverse burden under POCSO is only a shift in the evidentiary burden. The prosecution must still establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Once the necessary foundational facts are established, the accused can rebut the presumption by presenting a defence on the preponderance of probabilities.
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court found that the Prosecution evidence suffered from material contradictions. The evidence of the principal witness did not satisfy the standard of a reliable or “sterling” witness. The medical and forensic evidence also did not support the prosecution version.
The Court therefore concluded that the Prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence were consequently set aside and the Appellant was acquitted.
SARTHAK KALRA
Senior Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
EDITOR’S COMMENTS
The Judgment in Deepak in JC v. State Govt. of NCT Delhi is significant because it explains the limits of the reverse burden under the POCSO Act. The special presumptions contained in Sections 29 and 30 are intended to strengthen the protection given to children, but they cannot be applied mechanically.
The Judgment makes it clear that Section 29 does not mean that the prosecution’s case has to be accepted as true merely because a POCSO charge has been framed. The foundational facts must first be established, the evidence must be properly examined and the prosecution must ultimately prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This approach seeks to maintain the balance between the protection of children and the fundamental requirements of a fair criminal trial.
SUSHILA RAM VARMA
Advocate & Chief Consultant
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Watch our latest video