{"id":7504,"date":"2026-04-22T05:02:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-21T23:32:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/section-29-on-trial-sc-says-pocso-presumption-cant-stand-on-shaky-testimony\/"},"modified":"2026-07-21T17:47:44","modified_gmt":"2026-07-21T12:17:44","slug":"section-29-on-trial-sc-says-pocso-presumption-cant-stand-on-shaky-testimony","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=7504","title":{"rendered":"\u201cSection 29 on Trial: SC Says POCSO Presumption Can\u2019t Stand on Shaky Testimony\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has clarified that the presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, applies only after the prosecution proves the basic facts of a sexual assault. It cannot be used if the child victim’s statement itself is not fully reliable.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

Supreme Court Restores Acquittal:<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n \n \n \n

Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran set aside a decision of the Calcutta High Court, which had reversed an acquittal. The Supreme Court restored the trial court’s acquittal order dated March 13, 2019, in a case against a tuition teacher accused under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

The Court clearly stated:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

“Unless the testimony of a victim child is found to be fully credible and trustworthy, the question of applying the presumption on the strength of such statement alone would not arise.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

The foundational fact of a sexual assault that would attract the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act would require more than PW-1’s statement which, on the face of it, was not credible as what she had stated to her mother was not borne out by her own statement before the trial court”.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

Allegations:<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n \n \n \n

The case was based on allegations that on July 17, 2017, at about 9:25 pm, a tuition teacher inappropriately touched his 14-year-old student after sending other students away. The girl told her mother the same night, and a formal complaint was filed the next evening.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

The prosecution examined ten witnesses, including the child (PW-1). During cross-examination, the child said her parents were sitting on the verandah and the teacher’s wife was in the kitchen at the time of the incident. She also said her mother refused a medical examination.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

PW-2 (the mother) confirmed that the child told her about the incident the same night. However, she admitted there was a delay in filing the complaint and gave no clear explanation for refusing medical examination. She described the assault as the teacher brushing his leg against the child and pressing her breast. However, these details were completely missing from the child’s own testimony in court, which was given eight months later. This created a big contradiction and raised doubts about the child’s reliability.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

More doubt arose when another witness—whose statement was not challenged in cross-examination—said that she had gone to drop her son for tuition that day and returned along with the victim’s mother. This suggested that the mother may not have been alone at the time of the alleged incident.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n

Trial Court View:<\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n \n \n \n

The trial court acquitted the accused because:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \n \n \n