Setting aside the concurrent conviction orders of the Saket Special POCSO Court and the Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court of India has acquitted a man who spent years in judicial custody under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act after finding that the prosecution's own medical and forensic evidence completely undercut its case. A Division Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria held that the statutory presumption of guilt under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act is not absolute and cannot be applied mechanically to approve a prosecution narrative that stands contradicted by scientific proof.
The matter originated from a December 2015 FIR registered at Kalkaji Police Station based on a complaint by the mother of a two-and-a-half-year-old girl, who alleged that her neighbor, Deepak, had taken her child to a nearby park and sexually assaulted her. In August 2023, the trial court convicted Deepak under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment—a decision that was subsequently affirmed by the Delhi High Court in July 2025.
Upon reviewing the record, the Supreme Court identified glaring contradictions between the oral account and the medical findings. While the mother and a local private practitioner claimed to have observed blood on the child's clothing, the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report confirmed the absence of any blood, DNA, on the seized garments. Furthermore, examining doctors from AIIMS testified that the child had no physical injuries. The Bench also highlighted significant inconsistencies in the timing and details of the initial medical visit, alongside admissions made by the mother during cross-examination regarding a pre-existing dispute between the families over a shared water connection in their jhuggi cluster, which supported the defense's claim of false implication.
Authoring the judgment, Justice Anjaria emphasized that the mother could not be regarded as a "sterling witness" whose testimony could sustain a conviction without unassailable consistency. Clarifying the scope of reverse burden provisions under the POCSO Act, the Court ruled that while the prosecution must prove the foundational facts of an offense beyond reasonable doubt, an accused can rebut statutory presumptions on a mere preponderance of probability. Concluding that the appellant had successfully dismantled the prosecution's case through the medical evidence and material contradictions on record, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed his immediate release.
