Introduction
In a recent case regarding the POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act, a man was acquitted by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi due to insufficient evidence. The High Court stated that the case hinged merely on the testimony of the victim and her parents repeatedly stating that in 2014 the man tried to establish ‘physical relations’ with the girl. The Court went on to hold that the use of this phrase, unaccompanied by any forensic evidence could not be considered sufficient to hold beyond reasonable doubt the offence of rape. The case was registered under Section 6 of the POCSO Act which outlines the punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault as defined under Section 5 of the Act.
The court acquitted the convict stating that the term ‘physical relations’ has not been defined in the legal framework of POCSO and the lack of any forensic evidence proving the same, the conviction was unsustainable.
Burden of Proof in POCSO Cases
In India, in cases related to the POCSO act, there is a reverse burden of proof. Herein, the burden lies on the accused to prove that they are not guilty of the crime they are being tried for. Thus, the courts, based on Section 29 presume the guilt of the accused. It is the role of the defendant to prove that they are not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This is done to shift the burden of proof from the child victim to the accused to protect the child in accordance with Article 39 of the Directive Principles of State Policy.
Contest to Reverse Onus
In usual criminal cases, there is a presumption of innocence, and it is the prosecution which has to prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. However, reverse onus aims to protect the victim, and make the task of the prosecution easier, by presuming the guilt of the accused. In such cases, the accused has to present evidence to the contrary to create reasonable doubt in the mind of the court.
While the constitutionality of the reverse onus in POCSO has been challenged, the Kerala High Court has upheld the same. It stated that reverse onus of proof is justifiable on grounds of predominant public interest. Furthermore, in another case, it was held by the Delhi High Court that this presumption of guilt arises only after the charges are framed against the accused.
The Way Forward
There has always been a concern, in offences where reverse onus of proof is applicable, for the filing of fake or frivolous cases. In an offence as grievous as sexual assault against a child, every false case filed has a double edged impact. Firstly, it takes away attention, time and resources from cases which are genuine. Secondly, it impacts significantly the reputation and life of the person accused of the offence. Furthermore, with the approval of the Union Cabinet for death penalty in cases of penetrative sexual assault and aggravated penetrative sexual assault, it becomes all the more necessary to ensure a balance between presumption of guilt and the basic rights of the accused in a criminal trial.
About Author
Anwita Mishra, a law student at Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai, is an emerging legal writer with a keen interest in the changing dynamics of law. Deeply passionate about Media Law, Constitutional Law, and Family Law, she engages with contemporary legal developments through insightful research and writing.