Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Recently a bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta acquitted the accused of case under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, 2012 (POCSO) and held that “In absence of foundational fact not being proved beyond reasonable doubt, the reliance placed upon presumption under Section 29 & 30 of POCSO Act by learned Trial Court to base conviction, appears to be misplaced”.

• The Delhi High Court gave this observation in the case of Veerpal @ Titu v. State.

What was the Background of Veerpal @ Titu v. State Case?

• The case relates to an appeal filed by the appellant/convict under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), challenging his conviction and sentence by the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court POCSO, Saket Court, New Delhi.
• The appellant was convicted for offences under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The victim, a girl aged around 12 years, alleged that on 10^th September 2016, when the appellant visited their house, he kissed her, pressed her chest, and threatened to kill her if she complained.
• The prosecution examined 11 witnesses, including the victim, her grandmother, and police officials involved in the investigation.
• The defence claimed that the appellant was falsely implicated due to animosity arising from matrimonial disputes between the appellant's sister and her husband.

What were the Court’s Observation?

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant, acquitting him of the charges. The reasons given by the court are:

• The testimony of the victim was unreliable and full of contradictions regarding the date of informing her grandmother about the incident and the specific acts committed by the appellant.
• The delay of five days in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) and the failure to disclose the incident to the police officials who visited the premises on the day of the alleged incident raised doubts about the prosecution's case.
• The court found gaps and inadequacies in the prosecution's case, and the presumption of guilt under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act was discredited by the contradictions and discrepancies brought out in the cross-examination of witnesses.
• The prosecution failed to prove the foundational facts beyond reasonable doubt, and the reliance placed on the presumption by the trial court was misplaced.
• The court recognized that a wrongful conviction is far worse than a wrongful acquittal, and the prosecution failed to bring home the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

What are Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act?

• Section 29 of the POCSO Act:
  • Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under sections 3, 5, 7 and section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved.
• Section 30 of the POCSO Act:
  • In any prosecution for any offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the Special Court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution.
  • For the purposes of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the Special Court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability.
  • Explanation.— In this section, “culpable mental state” includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact and the belief in, or reason to believe, a fact.