Introduction
Can an accused be convicted merely because a statutory presumption of guilt exists under the POCSO Act? The Supreme Court, in Deepak in JC v. State Govt. of NCT Delhi, has clarified that the answer is no. The prosecution must first establish the basic and foundational facts constituting the alleged offence before the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act can operate.
The Court emphasized that a statutory presumption cannot be used as a substitute for reliable evidence. Where the prosecution case suffers from material contradictions, inconsistencies and lack of medical or forensic corroboration, the accused cannot be convicted merely by shifting the burden of proof onto him. In the present case, after examining the entire evidence, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.
Case Details
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Case | Deepak in JC v. State Govt. of NCT Delhi |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case No. | Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 21271–72 of 2025 |
| Judgment Date | 17 September 2026 |
| Bench | Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria |
| Key Provision | Section 29, POCSO Act |
| Other Provisions | Section 30 POCSO Act; Sections 363 and 6 POCSO/IPC provisions involved in conviction |
| Final Result | Conviction set aside; appellant acquitted |
Background of the Case
The prosecution alleged that the appellant had taken a 2½-year-old girl from near her home to a park and sexually assaulted her.
The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 363 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The Delhi High Court affirmed the conviction, relying substantially on the prosecution evidence and the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act.
The accused approached the Supreme Court challenging the conviction.
What Was the Main Issue?
The central question was whether the statutory presumption under Section 29 POCSO could operate when the prosecution evidence itself was inconsistent and failed to establish the necessary foundational facts reliably.
What Did the Supreme Court Find?
The Supreme Court closely examined the evidence of the victim’s mother, the private doctor and the medical/FSL evidence.
The Court found material contradictions in the evidence.
For example, the private doctor’s account regarding the time at which the victim was brought to him was inconsistent with the mother’s testimony. The Court held that this was not merely a minor discrepancy.
The medical evidence also did not support the prosecution case. The examining doctor found no injury or abnormality, while the FSL examination did not detect semen or male DNA and did not corroborate the alleged bloodstains on the child’s clothing.
Section 29 POCSO: When Does the Presumption Arise?
The Supreme Court clarified that a statutory presumption does not relieve the prosecution of proving the foundational facts of the offence.
Section 29 operates as a rule shifting the evidential burden. The prosecution must first establish the basic and foundational facts constituting the offence. Only after that initial burden is discharged does the burden shift to the accused to rebut the presumption.
In simple terms:
Prosecution proves foundational facts → Section 29 presumption operates → burden shifts to accused → accused may rebut the presumption.
The presumption cannot be treated as a shortcut to conviction.
Can the Accused Rebut the Presumption?
Yes.
The Court explained that the accused can rebut the presumption in several ways, including:
- exposing contradictions in prosecution evidence;
- demonstrating gaps or improbabilities;
- challenging the credibility of prosecution witnesses;
- pointing out inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence;
- relying upon the absence of essential evidence; and
- raising a permissible factual or statutory defence.
If the prosecution case itself becomes unreliable, the presumption may cease to have practical effect.
Standard of Proof Remains Important
The Supreme Court emphasized that a reverse burden provision does not change the fundamental standard applicable to the prosecution.
The prosecution must still establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Where the accused seeks to rebut the presumption, the applicable burden is comparatively lighter—preponderance of probability.
Supreme Court’s Final Decision
The Court concluded that the prosecution evidence contained material inconsistencies and that the medical evidence did not corroborate the alleged offence.
The appellant successfully rebutted the prosecution case. Consequently, the Supreme Court:
- set aside the Delhi High Court judgment;
- set aside the trial court conviction;
- held the appellant not guilty;
- acquitted him of the offences; and
- directed that he be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
The appeals were accordingly allowed.
Ratio Decidendi
A statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act cannot arise in a vacuum. The prosecution must first establish the foundational facts constituting the offence. The reverse burden then shifts to the accused, but the prosecution’s obligation to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt remains intact.
Key Takeaways
- Presumption is not automatic merely because Section 29 POCSO is invoked.
- The prosecution must first establish the foundational facts.
- Section 29 creates a rebuttable, not absolute, presumption.
- Reverse burden does not eliminate the prosecution’s duty to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Contradictions between witnesses can help rebut the presumption.
- Medical and forensic evidence must still be objectively assessed.
- The court cannot mechanically accept the prosecution version merely because a statutory presumption exists.
- The accused can rebut the presumption on a preponderance of probabilities.
- Fair-trial principles continue to apply even where reverse-burden provisions operate.
- Ultimately, the totality of evidence determines whether guilt has been established.
One-Line Crux
“A statutory presumption cannot substitute for foundational proof—the prosecution must first establish the basic facts before the reverse burden can shift to the accused.”
If your intended judgment is actually a Section 113-B dowry-death judgment, rather than this Deepak in JC judgment, the PDF for that case is not the judgment used above; the legal principle and sections would need to be framed differently.
