In India, the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is not explicitly mentioned in the legal texts like it is in some other jurisdictions. However, the spirit of this principle is embedded in various provisions of the Indian Constitution and the legal framework. Let's elaborate on this:

Presumption of Innocence

While the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" might not be directly mentioned in Indian laws, the concept of the presumption of innocence is deeply ingrained in the Indian legal system. It is reflected in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. This includes the right to a fair trial, ensuring that an accused person is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Burden of Proof

In criminal cases, the prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused. This aligns with the principle that the state must prove the guilt of the accused, rather than the accused having to prove their innocence. The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Right to Silence

The right to remain silent and not incriminate oneself is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. This reinforces the notion that the accused should not be compelled to prove their innocence but rather the prosecution must present evidence to prove their guilt.

Right to Fair Trial

The right to a fair trial, which is enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, includes the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. This encompasses the right to legal representation, cross-examination of witnesses, and the right to present a defense.

Judicial Precedents

Indian courts have repeatedly affirmed the importance of the presumption of innocence. They have ruled that an accused person is entitled to the benefit of doubt when there is uncertainty about their guilt.

International Commitments

India is a signatory to various international conventions that recognize and protect the presumption of innocence, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

In essence, while the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" might not be explicitly used in Indian legal terminology, the principles underlying this concept are well entrenched in the Indian legal system. The Constitution and judicial pronouncements safeguard the rights of the accused and ensure a fair trial process, emphasizing the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Exceptions

There are certain exceptions and circumstances where this principle might not be applied in the same way. Here are a few situations where the presumption of innocence might be challenged:

1. Special Laws and Regulations: Some special laws and regulations, such as anti-terrorism laws or laws related to economic offenses, might create a shift in the burden of proof. In such cases, the burden of proving innocence could be placed on the accused rather than the prosecution.

2. Certain Offenses: In some cases, especially involving grave offenses, the courts might not always strictly adhere to the principle of presumption of innocence. The seriousness of the offense could influence the way the burden of proof is applied.

3. Preventive Detention: In cases of preventive detention, where a person is detained without trial to prevent them from committing a future offense, the presumption of innocence might not be fully applicable. This is due to the nature of the detention itself, which is preventive rather than punitive.

4. Circumstantial Evidence: While the prosecution is responsible for proving guilt, in cases where there is strong circumstantial evidence against the accused, the court might infer guilt unless the accused can provide a reasonable explanation.

5. Confession Statements: If an accused person gives a voluntary confession, the court might consider it as evidence of guilt unless it can be proved that the confession was obtained through coercion or intimidation.

6. Evidentiary Standards: Depending on the type of evidence presented, the standard of proof required might vary. For instance, in civil cases, the standard of proof is lower ("preponderance of evidence") compared to criminal cases ("beyond a reasonable doubt").

7. Public Perception and Media: Public perception and media coverage can sometimes influence the way the presumption of innocence is perceived. High-profile cases might face greater scrutiny and preconceived notions about guilt or innocence.

It's important to note that while these exceptions exist, they do not negate the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence. The Indian legal system strives to uphold the rights of the accused and ensure a fair trial, even in cases where exceptions apply. The goal is to strike a balance between safeguarding individual rights and maintaining law and order.

Supreme Court of India on  "Innocent until proven Guilty"

1. Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar (1979):
This case highlighted the issue of prolonged pretrial detention and the rights of undertrial prisoners. The Supreme Court emphasized that the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is violated if an accused person is detained for an unreasonable duration without trial. The court laid down guidelines to address the problem of overcrowding in prisons and the need to expedite trials.

2. Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab (1994):
This case dealt with the constitutional validity of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA). The Supreme Court stressed that the fundamental principle of "innocent until proven guilty" should be upheld even in cases involving serious offenses. It underscored that the presumption of innocence should not be weakened merely because of the gravity of the offense.

3. Babu Singh vs. State of Punjab (1978):
In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated the principle that an accused person is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The court emphasized that if two views are possible on the evidence, one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence, the court must adopt the view favorable to the accused.

4. Dharam Deo vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973):
The Supreme Court emphasized that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. The court stated that even in cases where there is strong suspicion, conviction cannot be based on that suspicion alone. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" must still be upheld through substantive evidence.

5. D. G. Dani vs. State of Maharashtra (2002):
The Supreme Court reiterated that the burden of proof remains on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that the accused need not prove their innocence; it's the prosecution's responsibility to discharge its burden.

Exception in Posco Act

Section 29 - Burden of Proof:

Section 29 of the POCSO Act addresses the burden of proof in cases of penetrative sexual assault on a child. This section introduces what is often referred to as a "reverse burden of proof." In a typical criminal trial, the burden of proving guilt rests on the prosecution, and the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, in cases covered by Section 29, there is a shift in this burden.

In cases where a person is accused of committing penetrative sexual assault on a child, if certain conditions are met, the burden of proof shifts to the accused to prove their innocence. This means that the accused is required to provide evidence to show that they did not commit the alleged offense. The conditions under which this reverse burden of proof applies include factors such as:
- The accused is in a position of trust or authority over the child.
- The child is unable to explain the circumstances leading to the assault.
- The medical examination of the child reveals evidence of the offense.

It's important to note that this shift in the burden of proof does not negate the presumption of innocence. The accused is still entitled to a fair trial and the opportunity to present their defense. Section 29 seeks to address the challenges of collecting evidence in cases involving child victims and to provide them with better protection.

Section 30 - Presumption as to Certain Offenses:

Section 30 of the POCSO Act deals with a presumption regarding certain offenses mentioned in the Act. According to this section, when an accused is charged with an offense under sections 3, 5, 7, or 9 of the Act (which pertain to different categories of sexual offenses against children), the court is allowed to presume that the accused has committed the offense, unless proven otherwise.

However, this presumption is rebuttable, meaning the accused can present evidence to counter the presumption and establish their innocence. The court will still consider all evidence before making a final judgment. This provision is designed to make the prosecution's case stronger when certain conditions are met, but it doesn't eliminate the requirement of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In both cases, the overarching goal is to ensure that child victims are protected, while still upholding the principles of justice, fairness, and the presumption of innocence for the accused.