The recent ruling by the Delhi High Court challenges the notion that Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) binds courts to unquestionably accept the prosecution’s narrative. According to Justice Amit Mahajan, while the act provides a presumption of guilt, this presumption is not absolute and does not restrict the court’s discretion in granting bail to the accused.
Here is the full story:
1. Section 29 of the POCSO Act presumes guilt in cases of certain sexual offences against minors, unless proven otherwise.
2. The Act pertains to offences like penetrative sexual assault, aggravated penetrative sexual assault, sexual assault, and sexual intent towards minors.
3. A father sought anticipatory bail under the POCSO Act for alleged aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his 17-year-old daughter.
4. The accused was charged under Sections 354/354B/506(II) of the IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act.
5. The Court emphasized the prosecution’s duty to establish foundational facts for the presumption to apply in POCSO cases.
6. While the prosecutrix’s testimony is often sufficient, corroboration isn’t always required if it inspires confidence.
7. Due to delays in filing the FIR and disputes between the victim’s parents, the Court scrutinized the case with caution.
8. Since the accused wasn’t deemed a flight risk or likely to tamper with evidence, the Court granted him anticipatory bail, emphasizing the importance of appropriate bail conditions.
