Question

Explain how Sections 29–30 shift the burden of proof and what an accused must prove to rebut the presumption.

Hint:

Prosecution → prove basic facts. Court → presumes guilt + intent. Accused → must disprove by \textbf{preponderance of probabilities}. This makes defence strategy crucial in POCSO cases.

Answer 1

Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act create one of the strongest reverse-onus frameworks in Indian criminal law.
1. Section 29 – Presumption of guilt Once the prosecution proves basic foundational facts:

identity of the accused, and
that the child was subjected to the act (the actus reus),
the court shall presume that: \[ \boxed{the accused committed the offence} \] under Sections 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 or 13 of POCSO.
This reverses the usual presumption of innocence.
2. Section 30 – Presumption of culpable mental state This includes:

intention,
motive,
knowledge,
sexual intent,
any mental element required for guilt.
Thus, once the act is established, the court presumes: \[ mental state + guilt \]
3. What must the accused prove to rebut these presumptions?
The burden shifts to the accused to prove the absence of:

sexual intent,
guilty mind,
participation in the alleged act,
or show that circumstances make guilt impossible or improbable.
Standard of Proof for the Accused: Not “beyond reasonable doubt,” but “preponderance of probabilities.” This means the accused must show: \[ \boxed{\text{His version is more probable than not.}} \] Examples of rebuttal:

CCTV evidence contradicting the child’s account.
Alibi placing the accused elsewhere.
Evidence proving accidental, non-sexual contact.
Proof of mistaken identity.
Medical/legal reports inconsistent with sexual assault.
4. Interplay between Sections 29 & 30
Together, they create:
A double presumption:
(1) The act was committed by the accused;
(2) It was committed with sexual intent.
The accused must rebut both.