Facts
The accused was 22 years old and the victim was 16 ¬Ω years old at the time of the registration of the FIR. The accused had been convicted of offenses under Section 376(1) IPC and Section 4 POCSO by the trial court and appealed the conviction and the sentence awarded under Section 376(1) IPC before the High Court. The defense disputes that facts were not sufficiently established to convict the accused person and the presumption under Section 29, pointing out inconsistencies in the evidence and witness testimonies, a lack of physical evidence, and a delayed FIR. The prosecution asserts the accused’s guilt beyond doubt, justifying the delay in the FIR due to attempts to arrange marriage between the victim and the accused.
Judgment
The Court took note of the reverse liability cast by Section 29 POCSO on the accused to prove his innocence. Consequently, the presumption would have to be strictly interpreted and applied in the appropriate sense, as intended by the legislature. The Court also opined that the prosecution had failed to establish the chain of events leading to the alleged offense, which would raise a presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. According to the Court, a strong preponderance of probability was not established for it to be sufficient to raise a presumption under Section 29 POCSO and shift the negative onus on the accused to prove his innocence. Even if Section 29 were deemed to have been applied, the defense had been successful in highlighting discrepancies in the chain of events sought to be established by the prosecution and thereby demolished the prosecution’s case. The accused was consequently discharged of the onus cast under Section 29 POCSO.