Facts
The accused accosted the victim, a 10-year-old girl, by threatening her with a knife and raping her. The accused was convicted under Section 4 POCSO and appealed his conviction before the High Court. The Court sought to determine the extent to which the prosecution was required to prove the charge against the accused by virtue of the statutory presumption.
Judgment
The Court was of the opinion that the prosecution was required to establish the foundational facts on the standard of preponderance of probability and not based on proof beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the court opined that for a proceeding against the accused under POCSO for offenses under Sections 3, 5, 7, and 9, it would suffice if the accused was able to prove his innocence based on the preponderance of probability. But in the case of presumption under Section 30, the accused would have to prove the absence of a culpable mental state beyond reasonable doubt and not based on the preponderance of probabilities. The Court concluded that the charge against the appellant had been proved beyond reasonable doubt, since the application of the legal presumption under Section 29 to the proved foundational facts, metamorphosed and crystallized the proof of commission of the offense by the appellant based on preponderance of probability, to proof beyond reasonable doubt.