Section 29

Section 29 is one of POCSO's most significant and constitutionally sensitive provisions — it reverses the ordinary criminal presumption of innocence for the core sexual offence categories. In a normal criminal trial, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Under Section 29, once the prosecution establishes the basic facts (that the offence was committed and the accused was involved), the court presumes guilt — and the accused must disprove it on balance of probabilities. **What the presumption covers:** Section 29 applies to offences under Sections 3 (penetrative sexual assault), 5 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault), 7 (sexual assault), and 9 (aggravated sexual assault) — the four core contact sexual offence provisions. It does not apply to Section 11 (sexual harassment), Section 13 (child pornography), or procedural/reporting provisions. **What the prosecution must still prove:** The presumption does not excuse the prosecution from establishing any facts. The prosecution must still establish: 1. The offence was in fact committed (the child was sexually assaulted) 2. The accused's connection to the commission Once these basic facts are established, the court presumes guilt. The accused then bears the burden of rebuttal. **What the accused must do to rebut:** The accused must prove 'the contrary' on balance of probabilities — the civil standard. The accused does not have to establish innocence beyond reasonable doubt. Raising a reasonable doubt is not sufficient under Section 29 — the accused must produce affirmative evidence that, on the balance, makes their version more probable than the prosecution's. **Constitutional validity:** Section 29 reverses the ordinary criminal presumption of innocence — a fundamental right under Article 21. The provision has been challenged as unconstitutional. Courts have consistently upheld it as a reasonable restriction — the legislature's judgment that the vulnerability of child victims, the difficulty of proving sexual abuse, and the need to protect children from abusers who exploit the secrecy of their crimes justifies shifting the burden to the accused. **Interaction with Section 30 (Section 139 NI Act parallel):** Just as NI Act Section 139 presumes the cheque was for a legally enforceable debt once basic dishonour facts are established, POCSO Section 29 presumes guilt once basic assault facts are established. Both are rebuttable presumptions; both shift the burden to the accused; both have been upheld as constitutionally valid reasonable restrictions.