Topic
In Indian law, presumption of guilt refers to statutory or judicial inferences that shift the burden of proof to the accused in specific offences like dowry death, POCSO, bribery, or possession of stolen goods.
The Calcutta High Court acquitted the accused, ruling that an unexplained nine-month FIR delay destroys the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. The decision limits the presumption to promptly filed FIRs, safeguarding defendants from automatic liability.
Bombay High Court reinforces that the presence of minor girls in a brothel triggers an irrebuttable presumption of offence under Section 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The ruling limits the scope of revisional jurisdiction in cases involving heinous offences against minors, setting a strict precedent for human trafficking prosecutions.
Patna High Court sets aside conviction under the POCSO Act, ruling that statutory presumptions of guilt cannot apply unless the prosecution first establishes the victim's age under Section 2(d) through mandatory procedures under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The judgment underscores that age verification is not a formality but a prerequisite for invoking stringent child protection provisions.
Jharkhand High Court ruled that the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act for dowry death applies once dowry harassment and unnatural death are proven through circumstantial evidence, even in the absence of a viscera report. This reinforces the prosecution's burden to establish the foundational facts, not direct forensic evidence, to invoke the presumption of guilt.
Orissa High Court reinforces that mere acceptance of a bribe under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act creates a presumption of guilt, irrespective of whether the accused had the authority to perform the promised act. The ruling underscores the strict liability imposed on public servants for corrupt practices, reducing the prosecution's burden of proof.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that where prima facie evidence and the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act exist, leave to appeal against acquittal must be granted. This sets a precedent reinforcing victims' rights to challenge acquittals in sexual offence cases, ensuring judicial re-examination of evidence where statutory presumptions favour the prosecution.
Andhra Pradesh High Court holds that possession of stolen goods soon after theft raises presumption under Section 114 Evidence Act; silence during Section 313 CrPC examination may be construed adversely.