Pocso Section 29 And 30 Pocso Act 2012

Legal Assistance

Section 29 And 30 Pocso Act 2012

In order to combat the heinous crime of sexual abuse and exploitation of children through unclear and strict legal provisions, the Ministry of Women and Child Development pushed for the introduction of the POCSO ( Law on Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) in 2012. The law was enacted to protect children from sexual assault, sexual harassment and pornography and to provide for the establishment of special courts for the prosecution of such offences and related issues and incidents. The POCSO Act is a special law passed by the legislature to act as an association of persons best suited to the welfare and interests of children. A kind of action which is gender neutral and which considers children's welfare and well-being at all stages to be the top priority to ensure a healthy physical, emotional, intellectual and social development of children. 

    

Section 29 of the Sexual Offences Protection of Children Act (POCSO) states that the special court hearing the case must assume that the accused is guilty when a person is prosecuted for sexually assaulting a minor. The Supreme Court ruled that the presumption of guilt enshrined in Section 29 is triggered and applies before the trial begins, even before charges are brought against the accused. The Supreme Court found that the presumption under paragraphs 29 and 30 of the Law (Pocso) does not in any way prejudice the obligation of the public prosecutor to provide admissible evidence and to prove basic facts. 

    

If the prosecution provides admissible evidence to prove essential and fundamental facts, the accused will not suffer or lose if he proves that he did not commit the crime on the basis of the principle of the preponderance of probabilities. Said Suresh Kumar, dismissing the complaint of a defendant in a case under the 2012 Law on the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO).

    

The legal presumption in Section 29 of the POCSO Act was not intended to treat the prosecution's version as a gospel of the reality and authenticity of the case. The reverse burden of proof in Sections 29 and 30 of the Act is a presumption of the commission or complicity of certain crimes and a presumption about the state of mind of the accused due to the omnipresent nature of crimes against vulnerable souls, which in many cases do not represent or can understand the gravity of the crime. Given these assumptions, the "burden of proof" seems to vary depending on the quality of the evidence between the prosecution and the accused, not to mention the practice and procedure of taking evidence in POCso cases, which is no different from other criminal proceedings.

    

Contrary to the guilt clause in criminal law, the burden of proof of the defendant's innocence shifts to certain basic facts that must be demonstrated by the prosecution. If used correctly, this means that the prosecution will be given the opportunity to prove its case and not the accused, who is presumed guilty. 

    

Section 29 states that a person convicted of committing, assisting, or attempting to commit a crime pursuant to section 3, 5, 7, and 9 of the law or a special court shall be deemed to have committed, aided or attempted to commit the crime unless the person can prove otherwise. Section 30 deals with the presumption of guilt and mental state of the accused in relation to the crime committed or the acts for which the defence can prove it. 

    

The major banch said that the presumptions of Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act should therefore be investigated as part of the anvil test established in Kathi Kalu Oghad's case. If applicants are prosecuted for offences punishable under paragraphs 3 (a), 5, b, 5 (i), 5M, 5 O, 5 U, 4, 5 and 12 of the Act and others, the presumption of paragraphs 29 and 30 applies to them and calls into question the constitutionality of the applicants' main defence. Paragraph 29 places the presumption on the person being prosecuted pursuant to paragraphs 7 and 9 of paragraph 35, while paragraph 30 assumes that the mental guilt of the person being prosecuted for such an offence is the condition for a mental condition. 

    

In view of similar legal provisions, the Supreme Court ruled in the Veeraswamis case, in the Ramachandra Kaidalwars case, in the Noor Agas case, the Kumar Export case and in the Abdul Rashid Ibrahim case that the assumptions similar to those in section 29 and 30 of the POCSO law cannot be taken apart because the primary duty of law enforcement is to determine the basic facts. This obligation to prosecute can never be transferred to the accused. The reversal of the burden of proof of the accused's innocence means that the accused must refute the presumption made against him and the burden of proof rests with him to prove that he did not commit the crime. 

    

First of all, it is essential to understand the reverse proof burden of the law protecting children against sexual crimes, the uniqueness and similarity with other special statutes in different circumstances, and to repeat the judgements that argue that paragraphs 29 and 30 are indeed consistent with the Indian Constitution and the basic rights in it. The question of whether the presumption of guilt is applicable at trial stage and whether it applies when the bail plea is considered emerged during the bail hearing of a 24-year-old man arrested for allegedly sexually assaulting a minor. It has been made clear that the plea will be considered on the charges set out in his motion.