The POCSO Section 29 presumption arises only after the prosecution proves foundational facts.

The victim, the appellants’ niece, lived in the appellants’ house after the deaths of her grandmother and father.

She alleged that A-1 sexually abused her repeatedly between 2014 and 2017, with A-2 facilitating the abuse, and that A-1 also injured her with a needle and screwdriver.

The complaint was lodged in September 2017; A-2 was later summoned for trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

The trial court convicted A-1 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and A-2 under Sections 6 read with 17 of that Act, imposing life imprisonment on A-1 and ten years’ rigorous imprisonment on A-2.

Both appealed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.

1. Whether the victim’s evidence, considered with the surrounding circumstances and medical evidence, proved the alleged POCSO offences beyond reasonable doubt

2. Whether the prosecution established the foundational facts necessary to invoke the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act

Under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, the statutory presumption against the accused is activated only after the prosecution proves the foundational facts of the offence; it cannot be applied mechanically where those facts remain unestablished or doubtful.

The Court also recognised that a victim’s evidence can, if it inspires confidence, suffice for conviction without corroboration, but assessed its credibility and the probability of the alleged occurrence in light of the whole record.

The Court considered the victim’s account doubtful in light of the alleged prolonged abuse and injuries, her continued school attendance and contact with relatives, the absence of medical evidence of the described injuries, inconsistencies concerning who brought her to PW2, and evidence of an existing family property dispute.

It also noted that the victim’s cousin and other family members, as well as Mani, were not examined.

On the totality of these circumstances, the Court found the prosecution had not established the foundational facts and considered it unsafe to rely on the victim’s evidence to sustain the convictions.

It directed that they be released forthwith unless required in another lawful case and that any fines paid be refunded.