Debraj Dutta v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case No.: SLP (Crl.) No. 16838 of 2025
Table of Contents
Introduction
The Supreme Court clarified that the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act arises only when the prosecution proves foundational facts through credible and trustworthy evidence. Therefore, courts cannot invoke this presumption if the victim child’s testimony lacks reliability.
Factual Background
The case involved allegations against a tuition teacher accused of sexually assaulting a child.
According to the prosecution:
- The accused asked other students to leave the room
- He allegedly touched the victim child inappropriately
- The child disclosed the incident to her mother the same night
- The family lodged the complaint the next day
Trial Court Findings
The trial court acquitted the accused. It observed that:
- The prosecution delayed the FIR without proper explanation
- The victim did not undergo any medical examination
- The evidence failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Accordingly, the court granted the benefit of doubt to the accused.
High Court Decision
However, the High Court reversed the acquittal.
Although it correctly stated that Section 29 shifts the burden once foundational facts are proved, it failed to verify whether such facts actually existed. Consequently, it applied the presumption without proper scrutiny.
Also Read:
Non-Appearance of Plaintiff in Witness Box Not Always Fatal – Supreme Court Judgment Explained https://legalpaathcoaching.com/non-appearance-of-plaintiff-in-witness-box-not-always-fatal-supreme-court/
Issue
Can courts apply the presumption under Section 29 POCSO when the victim’s testimony is not fully reliable?
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court closely examined the evidence and identified several weaknesses in the prosecution’s case.
1. Doubt Regarding the Incident
First, the Court relied on the testimony of PW-6, who stated that she remained present at the location along with the victim’s mother.
Since the defense did not challenge this statement in cross-examination, the Court treated it as admitted. Therefore, the presence of another child created serious doubt about the prosecution’s version.
2. Delay in FIR
Next, the Court analyzed the delay in lodging the FIR.
Although the delay was only one day, the Court found it significant because the victim’s father was a police officer. Moreover, the prosecution failed to explain this delay satisfactorily.
3. Refusal of Medical Examination
Furthermore, the mother refused to allow even a basic medical examination of the child.
Because she offered no justification, the Court drew an adverse inference against the prosecution.
4. Inconsistencies in Testimony
The Court also noted material contradictions between the statements of the victim and her mother.
- The mother claimed that the accused brushed his leg against the child
- However, the child did not mention this fact in her testimony
Thus, these inconsistencies weakened the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
Legal Position Explained
The Supreme Court clarified the law as follows:
- The presumption under Section 29 is not automatic
- It arises only after proving foundational facts
- The victim’s testimony must be credible and trustworthy
- Courts cannot rely on weak or inconsistent evidence to invoke the presumption
Application to the Present Case
In this case:
- The victim’s testimony contained inconsistencies
- The evidence created significant doubt
- The prosecution failed to establish foundational facts
Therefore, the Court refused to apply the statutory presumption.
Error by the High Court
The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a clear error.
Instead of verifying foundational facts, it directly applied the presumption under Section 29. As a result, its reasoning became legally flawed.
Decision
Accordingly, the Supreme Court:
- Allowed the appeal
- Set aside the High Court judgment
- Restored the trial court’s acquittal
Conclusion
This judgment reinforces a crucial principle: courts must not apply Section 29 POCSO mechanically. Instead, the prosecution must first establish reliable and consistent evidence.
Only when the victim’s testimony inspires full confidence can the burden shift to the accused. Otherwise, the presumption cannot operate.
Also Read:
Section 100 CPC: Findings of Fact Cannot Be Reopened in Second Appeal | Supreme Court Explained https://legalpaathcoaching.com/section-100-cpc-findings-of-fact-cannot-be-reopened/
