DNA Evidence Overrules Testimony: Gauhati High Court Acquits POCSO Accused, Citing Credibility Loss

GUWAHATI – In a significant judgment reinforcing the primacy of conclusive scientific evidence, the Gauhati High Court has acquitted a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The Court held that when a DNA report definitively exonerates the accused from the paternity of a child born to the prosecutrix, the victim's testimony loses its credibility, dismantling the very foundation of the prosecution's case.

A division bench comprising Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Mitali Thakuria, while hearing an appeal in Abdul Hamid v. State of Assam , set aside the appellant's conviction under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The ruling underscores the critical principle that the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act is not absolute and can only be invoked after the prosecution has successfully established the foundational facts of the alleged offence.

The appeal, filed under Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), challenged a trial court's decision that had found the appellant, the victim's grandfather, guilty of raping the minor girl who was employed as a domestic help in his household. The prosecution's case rested on the allegation that the appellant had subjected the victim to penetrative sexual assault after compelling her to view pornographic material, which resulted in her pregnancy.

---

The Collapse of the Prosecutrix's Testimony

The High Court's decision hinged on a meticulous examination of the glaring contradictions in the victim's statements and the irrefutable DNA evidence. The bench highlighted significant discrepancies between the victim's initial statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and her subsequent deposition during the trial.

In her Section 164 statement, the prosecutrix had explicitly alleged penetrative sexual assault by the appellant. However, when testifying before the trial court as PW-1, her account changed drastically. The Court observed:

“From the evidence of PW-1 as discussed above, it is seen that she brought the allegation against the accused/appellant that he used to touch her inappropriately while she was staying with the grandfather/accused-appellant. She also specifically stated in her evidence that apart from this touching no other incident had taken place…”

This contradiction was fatal to the prosecution's narrative. The victim had attributed the resulting pregnancy solely to the appellant and had not implicated any other individual. The Court noted that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on a statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, which is primarily intended for corroboration or contradiction of the witness's in-court testimony, not as substantive evidence itself.

DNA Evidence: The Decisive Factor

The cornerstone of the High Court's ruling was the conclusive nature of the DNA test report. The scientific evidence established beyond any doubt that the appellant was not the biological father of the child born to the victim. This finding, the Court declared, "washes away the very edifice on which the victim's case was built."

While acknowledging the established legal principle that a conviction for rape can be based on the sole, uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix, the bench emphasized that this principle is conditional upon the testimony being credible and inspiring confidence. In this instance, the DNA evidence directly proved the victim's central allegation regarding paternity to be false. The Court held:

“However, the very basis of the victim's allegation has been taken away by the DNA test report, which shows that the appellant was not the father of the victim's child. When the victim's evidence has been proved to be false, we are of the view that it would not be safe to rely upon the sole evidence of the victim that she was raped by the appellant, as she cannot be said to be a reliable witness and her evidence does not inspire our confidence.”

The bench went further, suggesting that the inconsistencies and the false attribution of paternity indicated that the victim may have been manipulated. “In fact, due to above reasons, the victim appears to have been tutored to make a false case,” the Court remarked, pointing to the unreliability that now tainted her entire testimony.

Reining in the Presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act

A key legal issue addressed by the Court was the application of the presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. This provision mandates that where a person is prosecuted for committing an offence under specified sections of the Act, the Special Court shall presume that such person has committed the offence, unless the contrary is proved.

The prosecution had sought to rely on this presumption to secure the conviction. However, the High Court reiterated the settled position of law that this statutory presumption is not triggered automatically. The burden first lies on the prosecution to establish the "foundational facts" that constitute the offence. Only after these foundational elements are proven can the burden of proof shift to the accused to rebut the presumption.

In the present case, the Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish these foundational facts. The victim's contradictory and ultimately falsified testimony, combined with the exculpatory DNA evidence, meant that the basic elements of the crime were not proven against the appellant. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution was not entitled to invoke the presumption under Section 29.

This clarification serves as an important reminder for trial courts to apply the presumption judiciously and only after the prosecution has discharged its initial burden of proof.

Legal Implications and Conclusion

The Gauhati High Court's judgment in Abdul Hamid v. State of Assam provides a crucial precedent on the interplay between testimonial and scientific evidence in sexual assault cases. It reinforces that while the testimony of a victim, particularly a child, is given significant weight under the POCSO Act, it is not immune to scrutiny, especially when contradicted by unimpeachable scientific proof.

For legal practitioners, this ruling highlights the indispensability of DNA evidence in cases involving paternity disputes and its power to corroborate or completely discredit a witness's account. It affirms that the pursuit of justice requires a balanced approach, where the protective and presumptive provisions of laws like the POCSO Act are harmonized with the fundamental principles of evidence and the presumption of innocence.

By acquitting the appellant of all charges, the High Court has sent a clear message: when the central pillar of the prosecution's case is demolished by conclusive evidence, the entire structure must fall.

Case: Abdul Hamid v. State of Assam Counsel for Appellant: S.S. Zia Counsel for State: R.R. Kaushik