POCSO presumptions cannot sustain conviction absent reliable proof of foundational facts.

The appellant was convicted by the Special Court for offences under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and Sections 363, 342 and 451 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The prosecution alleged that he sexually assaulted the victim, then aged about ten, on multiple occasions and that she was found at or near his room on the night of 19–20 March 2022.

The Trial Court relied on the victim’s evidence, the accounts of her mother and maternal uncle, and the presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act; it sentenced the appellant to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 6, with concurrent sentences for the IPC offences.

The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence, relying, among other matters, on inconsistencies in the witnesses’ accounts, the initial PCR report, the medical evidence and the alleged financial dispute between the families.

1. Whether the prosecution evidence, assessed as a whole, reliably established the foundational facts of the alleged offences and sustained the appellant’s convictions, notwithstanding the statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act

2. Whether the inconsistencies in the victim’s and her mother’s accounts, together with the medical evidence, raised a reasonable doubt entitling the appellant to acquittal

The Court applied Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 363, 342 and 451 of the IPC, under which the charged sexual assault, kidnapping, wrongful confinement and house-trespass offences were considered.

It applied Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act on the basis that the statutory presumptions do not relieve courts of the duty to objectively assess the evidence, and that the prosecution must first establish the foundational facts of the alleged offence through cogent and reliable evidence.

Relying on Deepak in JC v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2026 INSC 1008, Debraj Dutta v. State of West Bengal, Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 16838 of 2025, decided 7 April 2026, and Vikash v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2026:DHC:6255, the Court reiterated that presumptions do not make the prosecution version conclusive, and that material contradictions or unreliable evidence may rebut the presumption or prevent proof of the foundational facts.

The Court found material discrepancies between the victim’s Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement and her trial testimony, including the omission at trial of her earlier account that the appellant had jumped over a wall and unlocked a gate.

It also considered her admission that her mother and uncle had told her what to tell the police, while noting that this fact alone did not establish tutoring or false implication.

The mother’s evidence was inconsistent about whether the victim was found in the appellant’s room or at her own house gate, and she denied that the victim had disclosed a further assault on the following day.

The Court also noted the evidence that the gate keys were held by other tenants and the absence of medical findings corroborating the alleged assault.

Considering these matters together, it held that the prosecution evidence created reasonable doubt and did not sustain the convictions despite the POCSO presumptions.