Section 117 of Bharatiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam i.e presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman

                                                                                                      POCSO Act,2012

                                                                 Presumption of guilty u\s 29 of pocso Act

                                                                                Debraj Dutta v.State of west Bengal &another

                                2026 SC 401                                                

The brief fact of the case is that,a minor girl 14 years old alleged that ,her private tution teacher was assaulted her at his residence &asked other students to leave &touched her inappropriately &the girl narrated that the incident happened around 9.25 pm.But ,the complaint to the police was filed next evening.                                                                               TRIAL          

There are 10 PWs including the victim. cross examination -1.During cross examination she said that the mother didnot allow medical examination. 2.other parents were sitting in the verandha &at the time the teacher"s  wife was inside the kitchen .

p.w 2 also testified that  her daughter told her about the incident ,the same night .But the complaint was filed the next day&she refused for medical examination .Mother said that her daughter told her that the teacher brushed his leg ,touched her chest and pressed her breast.But,after 8 months while the girl testified in court she didnot mentioned the leg touching part &the court treated this omission as a serious inconsistency &affected her credibility&hence on 2019 trial court  acquited the accused on the following ground 

1.delay in filling complaint 

2.no medical examination was done 

Again ,High court later reversed this acquittal and covicted accused U/S 8 Of the POCSO Act &relied on section 29 which allows the court to prsume the accused is guilty once certain basic facts are proved.

                                                               Honourable Supreme court observations

1.whether those basic facts were actually proved 

2.Child testimony was not fully reliable 

3.delay in filling complaint matter coz the girls father was a police officer so reporting could have been quicker

4.refusal of medical examination 

The court said  this allows an adverse inference possibility of other people being present 

The court held, prosecution failed to prove the basic facts of sexual assault, foundational facts were not proved the presumption of guilty under section 29 cannot be applied.on the follwing grounds   A.section 29 of POCSO ACT, doesnot apply automatically

B.It apply whn the prosecution prove basic facts of the offence

C. child testimony  itself is not credible and trustworthy therefore presumption cannot be used .