DNA Evidence Trumps Hostile Witness Testimony for Conviction Under S.6 POCSO Act: Delhi High Court - 2025-09-09

Delhi High Court Upholds Brother's Conviction for Raping Minor Sister, Citing Conclusive DNA Evidence Over Family's Retraction

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, has affirmed the conviction and 20-year sentence of a man for the aggravated penetrative sexual assault of his minor sister, holding that unimpeachable DNA evidence can form the basis of a conviction under the POCSO Act, even when the victim and her family turn hostile during the trial.

Justice Sanjeev Narula, presiding over the appeal, dismissed the plea of the convict, Ashish, underscoring that in cases of intra-familial abuse, the retraction of statements by victims and their families is not uncommon and cannot efface scientific proof that directly links the accused to the crime.

Case Background

The case originated from an FIR registered in May 2020 after the victim, then 15 years old, was taken to a hospital by her mother for a medical termination of pregnancy. The medical examination revealed she was 22 weeks pregnant. Initially, the victim gave a written complaint stating her elder brother, Ashish, had sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions, leading to the pregnancy. This was corroborated by a subsequent statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.

However, during the trial, the victim and her family, including her parents and sister, completely retracted their initial statements. The victim testified that her pregnancy was the result of a consensual relationship with an individual named 'Rahul,' of whom she could provide no identifying details. She claimed her initial statement implicating her brother was made under duress.

The Trial Court, however, convicted Ashish under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, primarily relying on a DNA report from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), which conclusively established him as the biological father of the foetus. The court sentenced him to the statutory minimum of 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.

Key Arguments

Appellant's Contentions: The appellant's counsel argued that the conviction was unsustainable as it was based solely on DNA evidence without any corroboration from oral testimony. It was contended that the primary witnesses, including the victim, had exonerated the appellant. The defence also raised doubts about the integrity of the DNA evidence, citing alleged breaks in the chain of custody and improper storage of samples.

State's Submissions: The State strongly defended the conviction, arguing that the DNA profiling was conclusive scientific evidence of the appellant's culpability. The prosecutor submitted that once the victim's minority and pregnancy were established, the DNA match was sufficient to uphold the conviction, and the victim's later retraction could not dilute the value of her initial statements corroborated by science.

High Court's Analysis: DNA as Unimpeachable Corroboration

Justice Narula meticulously analyzed the evidence, noting the "discernible progression" in the victim's statements from direct implication to complete exoneration. The Court categorized her testimony as "neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable," necessitating a search for corroboration.

"Judicial prudence, therefore, demands that her testimony be examined in light of corroborative material to assess its veracity and reliability. It is here that the scientific evidence, particularly the DNA profiling, assumes significance."

The court found the FSL report to be decisive. The forensic examiner had testified that the analysis left "no room for speculation," proving the appellant was the biological father. The court dismissed challenges to the chain of custody, noting that the samples were properly sealed and received intact at the FSL, with no evidence of tampering presented by the defence.

The judgment emphasized that once the victim's minority was proven (making consent legally irrelevant) and the appellant's paternity was scientifically established, the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act was triggered. The defence failed to rebut this presumption.

Final Decision and Court's Observations

The High Court concluded that no perversity or misappreciation of evidence was found in the Trial Court's judgment. Affirming the 20-year sentence, the court observed that it was the statutory minimum prescribed under Section 6 of the POCSO Act for such an aggravated offence.

In a poignant postscript, Justice Narula reflected on the courtroom dynamics, where the victim and her family stood together to seek the appellant's release.

"Intra-familial abuse is often shrouded in silence—silence borne at the child’s expense, where duty recasts as protection of the adult... Compassion for a family in anguish cannot translate into impunity for harm done to a child. The law’s foremost duty is to safeguard the child’s dignity and safety."

The court issued directions to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to ensure counselling, support, and timely disbursal of compensation for the victim, reinforcing the rehabilitative aspect of justice.