INTRODUCTION
The High Court of Gujarat, while dismissing an appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of the respondent-accused in a Special POCSO case, ruled that the DNA report was inadmissible because the expert who conducted the test was never examined in court. The appeal arose from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod, who had acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 64(2)(m) and 89 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
The State argued that a hostile victim does not wipe out medical and scientific evidence, and that a minor’s consent is no consent in law. The High Court found no perversity in the Trial Court’s judgment and held that the acquittal was a reasonable and possible view on the evidence.
BACKGROUND
The victim aged 17 years and 10 months, was allegedly sexually abused by the respondent-accused who lived in the same village as her. The prosecution alleged that they were in a relationship for about 2 years and the accused committed rape repeatedly on the victim during that period. It was further alleged that the victim was impregnated and the accused gave her medicine to abort the fetus, which caused miscarriage.
On 24 March, 2025 the victim was taken to a local Community Health Centre and she was significantly bleeding and there she disclosed her relationship. Her father lodged an First Information Report (FIR) at the Lindi Police Station. The I.O. (investigating officer) arrested the accused and both the victim and the accused were sent to complete the medical examination, as well as for the collection of DNA sample for its analysis, and witnesses statements were duly recorded. The victim’s statement was recorded before the Magistrate under S.183 of the BNSS, 2023. The chargesheet was filed subsequently.
The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed that he was falsely implicated. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses, including the prosecutrix. The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused as the victim did not support the prosecution and there was no admissible evidence to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The State then appealed under Section 419 BNSS.
KEY POINTS
- The High Court dismissed the appeal at the admission stage and upheld the acquittal.
- It was reiterated that the appellate court can interfere with the judgment of acquittal in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse.
- The victim was declared hostile and did not support the prosecution in cross-examination.
- It was held that a DNA profiling report is inadmissible if the scientific expert who conducted the examination is not examined in court.
- The victim did not admit the contents of her Section 183 BNSS statement before the Magistrate. Apart from the DNA report, nothing on record proved the accused’s involvement.
- It was clarified that having an affair does not prove that the victim was impregnated on account of repeated sexual intercourse by the accused.
- The Trial Court’s view was held to be reasonable and possible, and found no perversity in it.
ANALYSIS
The judgment shows how heavily a prosecution of this kind depends on proper proof of its scientific evidence. Although the victim admitted the relationship with the accused, she denied having physical relations, becoming impregnated or undergoing miscarriage at his instance. The prosecution’s heavy reliance on the DNA Analysis Report did not prove to be fruitful as the expert who conducted the DNA profiling was not examined.
The Court, relying on Rahul v. State of Delhi [(2023) 1 SCC 83], emphasised that mere exhibition of the report through the I.O. is insufficient, because the reliability of the techniques and the integrity of the findings must be established through expert testimony. Apart from the unproved DNA report, no sufficient evidence was produced to connect the accused with the alleged offences.
Therefore, the High Court found no ground to interfere with the acquittal.
CONCLUSION
The High Court, vide this decision, reiterated that even in serious offences involving minors, a conviction must rely on evidence proved in accordance with law. An appellate court will not disturb an acquittal that is based on a reasonable and possible view of the evidence.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: T. R. AISIRI RAO
