Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted Under POCSO Act, Rules Presumptions Under Sections 29 and 30 Are Rebuttable, Apex Court Holds That Statutory Presumptions Cannot Override Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt; Sets Aside Delhi High Court's Confirmation of Conviction
New Delhi, September 17, 2026: In a landmark ruling that reaffirms the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India has acquitted a man who had been convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, for allegedly committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a 2.5-year-old girl.
A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria, while allowing Criminal Appeal Nos. 4414-4415 of 2026, set aside the judgment dated July 3, 2025 passed by the High Court of Delhi, which had confirmed the trial court's conviction and sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and 1 year rigorous imprisonment under Section 363 of the IPC.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a complaint filed on December 11, 2015 at Kalkaji Police Station, New Delhi, by the mother of the victim (PW-5), alleging that the appellant, a neighbor residing in an adjoining jhuggi, had taken her 2.5-year-old daughter to a nearby park and committed sexual assault on her. The FIR was registered for offences under the IPC and POCSO Act, and the trial court convicted the appellant in August 2023, a decision subsequently upheld by the Delhi High Court in July 2025.
Key Findings of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court conducted an exhaustive analysis of the prosecution evidence and found it riddled with serious contradictions and improbabilities. The Court noted glaring inconsistencies between the testimonies of the mother (PW-5) and the private doctor (PW-1), particularly regarding the time at which the victim was brought for medical examination. While PW-1 stated that the victim was brought at 4-5 PM on December 9, 2015, PW-5 deposed that she had gone to the doctor at 9:30 PM along with her husband.
The medical and forensic evidence proved fatal to the prosecution's case. Dr. Varnit of AIIMS found no injury and the hymen of the victim intact without any abnormality. The FSL Expert (PW-8) confirmed that no semen was detected on any of the seven exhibits subjected to biological and DNA tests, and critically, no blood was detected on the victim's pyjami — directly contradicting the testimonies of PW-5 and PW-1.
The Court also accepted the defence's plea of enmity arising from water-sharing disputes between the families, noting that PW-5 herself admitted in cross-examination about quarrels over a common water connection shared by four households including the appellant's, lending credibility to the defence that the complaint was motivated by ill-intention.
On the Law of Presumptions Under POCSO Act
Delivering a significant ruling on the interpretation of Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, the Court held that these statutory presumptions are not absolute and are rebuttable in nature. The Court emphasized that presumptions cannot be used as a shield to bypass the fundamental obligation of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Justice N.V. Anjaria, writing the judgment, observed that courts must not mechanically apply presumptive provisions to approve every prosecution story, even if it is absurd or improbable. The accused can rebut these presumptions by exposing inconsistencies, contradictions, gaps, and improbabilities in the prosecution's case, or by raising a probable and cogent defence.
The Court further held that while the burden on the accused under such presumptive provisions is only to establish innocence on a preponderance of probability, the prosecution's duty to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt remains unchanged and undiminished.
Drawing from precedents including Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, and Gangadhar alias Gangaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court reaffirmed that if two views are possible on the evidence — one pointing toward guilt and the other toward innocence — the view favoring the accused must be adopted.
Order
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant, directing his immediate release if in custody, unless required for any other offence. The Court unequivocally held that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and that the defence had successfully rebutted the statutory presumptions under the POCSO Act.
This judgment is expected to serve as an important precedent in POCSO cases, reminding trial courts and High Courts that the presumptive provisions under the Act, while significant, cannot be applied mechanically to override the constitutional rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Bottom Line:
Presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act are rebuttable, and the accused can displace these presumptions through inconsistencies, improbabilities, and contradictions in the prosecution's evidence or by providing a cogent defense.
Statutory Provision(s): Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, Section 30 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, Section 5(m) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Section 35 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, Section 54 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872
Deepak in JC v. State Govt. of NCT Delhi, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2980641
