Abstract

The golden thread of criminal law places the onus of proving the accused guilty beyond any reasonable doubt on the prosecution. The reverse onus clause jeopardises this golden rule and is said to infringe the accused's fundamental rights. While the legislature justifies its intent stating the reverse onus clause is brought into the picture after considering the 'gravity of the offence'; 'difficulties that will show up if the prosecution tries to prove the offence' and the 'gist of the offence committed'. It can be accepted that shifting the burden of proof onto the accused is a two-way sword. As on his head-the principal onus of proof is now on the accused, and if he is unsuccessful in proving the same beyond any reasonable doubt, he will be convicted. Consequently, only while keeping in mind the accused person's rights, the rules of natural justice, and other fundamental human rights can the reversal of the onus clause be undertaken. The legality of the reverse onus clause in POCSO cases has been answered ahead.

Keywords