Inordinate delay in FIR and inconsistent testimonies regarding foundational facts negate the presumption of guilt.

The Appellants challenged their conviction dated 28.04.2023 for offences under Sections 376 and 120B of the IPC, Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution alleged that on 30.09.2012, the accused kidnapped the victim ('X'), aged 15-16, and sold her into a Mumbai brothel.

The victim allegedly escaped and returned after three months, yet the FIR was lodged only on 12.02.2014—a delay of over a year.

The Trial Court convicted the appellants primarily based on the victim's testimony and the presumption of guilt under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act.

1. Whether the conviction under the POCSO Act was legally sustainable given that the Act came into force on 14.11.2012, while the alleged offence occurred on 30.09.2012.

2. Whether the "reverse burden of proof" under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act can be invoked without the prosecution first proving foundational facts.

3. Whether the inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with material contradictions, vitiates the prosecution's case.

The Court applied the principle that the POCSO Act, 2012, cannot be applied retrospectively to offences occurring before its commencement on 14.11.2012.

It relied on Mehraj Singh (L/Nk.) v. State of U.P. regarding the loss of sanctity of an FIR in cases of inordinate, unexplained delay.

Furthermore, citing Ramanand v. State of U.P., the Court held that the presumption of innocence is a human right and the "reverse burden" under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act only triggers after the prosecution proves "foundational facts" beyond reasonable doubt.

It also considered the margin of error (plus/minus two years) in bone ossification tests for age determination per Rajak Mohammad v. State of H.P.

The Court found the prosecution's case fundamentally flawed due to the retrospective application of the POCSO Act to a September 2012 incident.

Critically, the FIR was filed over a year after the victim's return, and no police assistance was sought during her three-month disappearance, which severely undermined the credibility of the story.

The Investigating Officer (PW-6) admitted that he did not verify the Mumbai/Varanasi locations and disclosed that the informant had a history of filing and compromising similar cases for money.

The Court reasoned that because the "foundational facts" regarding the kidnapping and sale were not proved, the statutory presumption of guilt could not be used to bypass the requirement of a fair trial.

The discrepancies between the testimonies of the victim (PW-1) and her mother (PW-2) regarding how they met in Mumbai further rendered the evidence untrustworthy.

The Court held that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 was not trustworthy and the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

The Appellants (Pappu Dalal Banarsi and Munna Darjee) were ordered to be released forthwith, and Sahina Khatoon was discharged from her bail bonds.