Presumption Of Guilt Under POCSO Act Not Absolute: Supreme Court Acquits Man 

Case Details

Case Title: Deepak in JC v State Govt. of NCT Delhi

Case No.: SLP(Crl.) Nos. 21271-72 of 2025

Coram: Hon’ble Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

              Hon’ble Justice N.V. Anjaria

Counsel For Appellants: AOR Adv. Mr Pulkit Prakash, Adv. Ms Nabira Farman, Adv. Mr SS Sastry, Adv. Mr Ankur Gosain, Adv. Ms Arushi Sharma, Adv. Mr Harsh Raj, Adv. Ms Sriti Kashyap, Adv. Ms Ankita Sinha, Adv. Mr Gaurav Khanna, Adv. Mr Arjun Mohan, Adv. Mr Avinash Singh, Adv. Mr Venugopal Pillai J

Counsel for Respondents:  ASG Mr Davinder Pal Singh, AOR Dr N Visakamurthy, AOR Mr Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Adv. Mr Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Mr Bhuvan Kapoor, Adv. Ms Seema Bengani, Adv. Mr Udit Dediya, Adv. Mr Mukul Singh

Background of the Case

The case arose from an allegation involving a 2½-year-old child in Delhi. According to the prosecution, the child had gone to the accused, Deepak’s, nearby jhuggi while playing and was later taken by him to a nearby park. When the child returned home, her mother noticed that she was distressed and subsequently alleged that a sexual assault had taken place. Based on the complaint, criminal proceedings were initiated against Deepak. The Trial Court ultimately found him guilty under Section 363 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to imprisonment. The matter was then taken to the Delhi High Court, which upheld the conviction, leading Deepak to approach the Supreme Court challenging the findings against him.

Issue

The Supreme Court mainly examined whether the prosecution’s evidence was reliable enough to sustain the conviction, including the medical and FSL reports. It also considered how the presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act should apply when the prosecution’s evidence itself was in question, and whether the prosecution had first established the basic facts of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

Sections Involved

• Section 363 IPC – Kidnapping

• Section 6 POCSO Act – Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault

• Sections 29 & 30 POCSO Act – Statutory presumptions relating to the offence and culpable mental state

Supreme Court’s Observation

The Supreme Court closely examined the evidence rather than simply relying on the POCSO presumption. The Court noticed important differences between the mother’s testimony and the doctor’s evidence. The medical examination revealed no injury or abnormality, while the FSL report found no semen, male DNA, or blood on the child’s clothing.

The Court also clarified that while Sections 29 and 30 of POCSO create statutory presumptions, they do not relieve the prosecution of its duty to first establish the foundational facts through credible evidence. These presumptions are rebuttable and cannot replace the requirement of carefully assessing the evidence and proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Judgement

The Supreme Court found that the prosecution had not been able to establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court therefore set aside the earlier decisions of both the Trial Court and the Delhi High Court. Deepak was acquitted of the offences under Section 363 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and the Court directed that he be released unless his custody was required in connection with any other case.

Conclusion

The judgment highlights an important principle of criminal justice: even in serious cases involving statutory presumptions, conviction must be based on reliable evidence. The Court emphasised that protecting children and ensuring a fair trial must go hand in hand. Where genuine reasonable doubt remains, the benefit must go to the accused.