Case Title: Deepak in JC v. State Govt. of NCT Delhi
Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra & Justice N.V. Anjaria
Date of Judgment: September 17, 2026
Key Provisions: Sections 29 & 30, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012; Section 363, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now Section 137, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023)
Introduction
In a crucial judgment addressing criminal procedure and statutory interpretation, the Supreme Court of India held that the statutory presumption of guilt under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, 2012 is not absolute.
Setting aside a conviction upheld by the Delhi High Court, the Division Bench ruled that courts cannot mechanically invoke presumptive provisions to rubber-stamp prosecution stories that are inherently absurd or improbable. Once an accused exposes fundamental contradictions and a lack of medical or forensic corroboration, the statutory presumption of guilt ceases to operate.
Factual Background
-
The Allegation: The complainant alleged that her 2.5-year-old daughter went missing while playing near their jhuggi (slum cluster) and was allegedly taken to a nearby park by the appellant. Upon returning, blood was allegedly noticed on her clothing, and the child allegedly named the appellant.
-
Proceedings Below: A chargesheet was filed, and the trial court convicted the appellant under Section 363 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. The Delhi High Court subsequently dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.
-
Glaring Discrepancies: On appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant highlighted severe material contradictions between witness testimonies, medical reports, and forensic findings:
-
Medical Disproof: While the complainant claimed there was blood on the child’s clothes and injuries to her private parts, the doctor at AIIMS found no physical injuries, no bloodstains over the vulva area, and an intact hymen.
-
FSL Report: Forensic experts (PW-8) confirmed that none of the seven parcels sent for examination contained male DNA or semen, nor was any blood detected on the child’s clothing.
-
Pre-existing Enmity: During cross-examination, the complainant admitted to an ongoing quarrel with the appellant’s family over a shared water connection near their jhuggis, giving credence to the defence’s claim of a motivated complaint.
-
Key Legal Principles Laid Down by the Supreme Court
Reversing the conviction and acquitting the appellant, the Apex Court detailed how presumptive provisions interact with the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence:
1. Presumption under Sections 29 & 30 is Not Absolute
Section 29 of the POCSO Act presumes the guilt of the accused once foundational facts are established, while Section 30 presumes a culpable mental state. The Bench emphasized that these statutory provisions represent a departure from the cardinal rule of criminal law—that an accused is innocent until proven guilty—and must therefore be applied with caution.
2. Foundational Facts Must Be Proven First
Relying on the Bombay High Court ruling in Navin Dhaniram Baraiye v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that Section 29 comes into operation only after the prosecution successfully establishes foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution cannot bypass its initial burden of proof merely by pointing to statutory presumptions.
3. Courts Must Not Act Mechanically
The Bench stated:
“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.”
An accused cannot be placed at a systemic disadvantage purely because the statute under which they are tried contains a reverse onus clause.
4. Standard of Rebuttal for the Accused
Tracing landmark precedents such as Naresh Kumar alias Nitu v. State of H.P., Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, and Gangadhar v. State of M.P., the Court reiterated:
-
The prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt remains undiminished throughout the trial.
-
The accused’s burden to rebut the presumption under POCSO is far lower, they need only establish a preponderance of probability.
5. Benefit of Reasonable Doubt
Reaffirming Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Bench held that where two views are reasonably possible based on the evidence, the court must adopt the view favoring the accused, irrespective of public perception surrounding the gravity of the offence.
Court’s Conclusion
The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution’s case was riddled with inconsistencies, material contradictions, and negative forensic/medical findings that completely ruled out the possibility of a penetrative act.
Because the appellant successfully demonstrated a credible defense of prior enmity and dismantled the prosecution’s foundational narrative, the statutory presumption under Sections 29 and 30 was effectively rebutted, entitling him to an acquittal.