The POCSO Act reverses part of the evidentiary burden through its presumptions, but it does not dispense with proof of foundational facts. In Suraj Kumar v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (CRL.A. 143/2026, decided 30 September 2026), Justice Madhu Jain of the Delhi High Court set aside a conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and allied IPC provisions, holding that material contradictions between the victim's successive accounts, unsupported by medical evidence, left the prosecution case in reasonable doubt.
The prosecution case and the conviction
The appellant was tried for sexually assaulting a child of about ten years in March 2022. The charge invoked Section 6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) together with Sections 363, 342, 451 and 376-AB of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial court convicted, relying on the child’s testimony reinforced by the statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act. The appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC (now Section 415 BNSS) brought the record before the High Court.
Where the evidence cracked
The Court found material contradictions between the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, her examination-in-chief and her mother’s testimony — differences going to the substance of the allegation, not mere peripheral detail.
The medical evidence did not support the charge of penetrative assault, removing the corroboration that might have steadied an otherwise inconsistent account.
The judgment emphasises that the presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 do not dispense with an objective appreciation of the evidence: they arise upon a credible foundation and can be rebutted by infirmities in the prosecution case itself.
Weighing these factors, the Court held that the prosecution had not proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt, set aside the conviction and sentence, and directed the appellant’s release.
The legal framework in brief
POCSO trials sit at the intersection of two imperatives: the statute’s protective architecture for child victims — in-camera trials, support persons, presumptions, and a bar on character attacks — and the constitutional guarantee that no one is convicted except on proof beyond reasonable doubt. The settled reconciliation is sequencing. The prosecution must first establish foundational facts through evidence that inspires confidence; only then do the presumptions shift the burden to the accused, who may discharge it on a preponderance of probabilities, including by pointing to contradictions and gaps in the prosecution’s own case.
Once a POCSO charge is framed, the accused must prove innocence, and the victim’s testimony cannot be questioned.
The presumptions operate on a foundation of credible prosecution evidence. Material contradictions and absent corroboration can prevent the foundation from forming — or rebut the presumption once formed.
Takeaways for trial and appellate practice
Identity protection: the victim’s name and identifying details remain protected under Section 33(7) POCSO and Section 72 BNS (formerly Section 228A IPC) at every stage, including appellate reporting. This article follows the anonymisation in the judgment itself.
Frequently Asked Questions
What do Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act presume?
Section 29 presumes, once the foundational facts of an offence under Sections 3, 5, 7 or 9 are in play, that the accused committed the offence unless the contrary is shown; Section 30 presumes a culpable mental state. Courts have consistently held that these presumptions operate only after the prosecution first lays a believable foundation through its own evidence.
Can a conviction rest on the victim's sole testimony?
Yes — if that testimony is of sterling quality and inspires confidence. Where the account materially shifts between the statement under Section 164 CrPC (now Section 183 BNSS), the examination-in-chief and other prosecution evidence, the foundation weakens and corroboration becomes important.
Does acquittal in appeal mean the complaint was false?
No. An acquittal on reasonable doubt records that the evidence fell short of the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt; it is not an affirmative finding that the incident did not occur or that the complaint was malicious.
What happens to a convict when the appeal succeeds?
The conviction and sentence are set aside and the appellant is released forthwith if in custody for that case alone, subject to compliance with Section 437A CrPC (Section 481 BNSS) bonds that keep the accused answerable if the State carries the matter further.