POCSO Act | No Presumption Of Guilt Against Accused If Prosecution Fails To Prove 'Foundation Facts' Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Patna High Court

While deciding a POCSO case, the Patna High Court on Tuesday (July 23) reiterated that the prosecution would not be absolved from proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt despite the presumption of committing an offence operating against the accused under Section 29 of POCSO Act.

The Court said that irrespective of the fact that there exists a presumption against the accused, the prosecution would still be required to prove the foundational facts regarding the allegation of sexual assault against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

The bench comprising Justices Ashutosh Kumar and Jitendra Kumar observed that a presumption against the accused would not be operative if no documentary evidence proving the age of the minor during the time of the incident was produced by the prosecution nor there exist material piece of evidence proving the guilt of the accused.

In essence, the court said that the presumption against the accused wouldn't rise automatically, the presumption only arises when the prosecution establishes the foundational facts regarding the allegation of sexual assault against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It is only then the accused gets the chance to rebut the presumption by leading evidence and cross-examining the prosecution witnesses.

“Hence, it clearly emerges that despite Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, 2012 the prosecution is not absolved of its burden to prove that the victim is a child i.e. below 18 years of age and he/she has been subjected to sexual assault by the accused and such foundational facts have to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts and once the presumption is raised against the accused, the accused can rebut such presumption either by cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses or by leading evidence in his/her defence, on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The presumptions are bats in law. They fly in a twilight, but vanish in the light of facts.”, the Judgment authored by Justice Jitendra Kumar observed.

In the present case, the prosecution had failed to supply relevant documents to prove the age of the victim, and there existed material contradictions in the testimonies supplied by the prosecution witnesses.

Since the foundational facts against the accused regarding the commission of an offence of sexual assault were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, the court said there arises no presumption against the accused.

“On the basis of such evidence, allegation of sexual assault cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, there is no question of raising presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against the appellant.”, the court added.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Counsels For Appellant(s): Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate. Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate, Mr. Ritwik Kumar, Advocate.

Counsels For Respondent(s): Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Kiran Kumari Sharma, Advocate.

Case Title: Manjit Ram @ Manjit Kumar Versus The State of Bihar & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Pat) 60

Click here to read/download the judgment