Rajasthan High Court Upholds Acquittal in POCSO Case, Rules DNA Report Cannot Be Sole Basis for Conviction

Jaipur, Rajasthan – The Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling, has reinforced the legal principle that a DNA report, while being a crucial piece of scientific evidence, cannot be the sole basis for convicting an accused in a rape and POCSO case, especially when the prosecutrix does not support the prosecution's allegations.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand dismissed the state's appeal against the acquittal of Shyam Kumar, who was tried for offences including kidnapping and aggravated sexual assault under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

Case Background

The case originated from a complaint filed on February 4, 2022, by the father of a minor girl, alleging that Shyam Kumar had abducted his daughter along with cash and ornaments. The police registered an FIR and subsequently filed a charge sheet against Kumar for offences under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(n), and 376(3) of the IPC, as well as Sections 3/4(2) & 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act.

However, the trial took a decisive turn when the prosecutrix (PW1- “J”), in her court testimony, did not support the allegations of sexual assault or rape. Consequently, she was declared a hostile witness by the prosecution. After evaluating the evidence, the Special Judge (POCSO Act) No. 2, Bundi, acquitted Shyam Kumar of all charges on October 21, 2023, citing the prosecution's failure to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The State's Appeal and Arguments

The State of Rajasthan challenged the acquittal in the High Court, arguing that the trial court had erred by overlooking a crucial piece of evidence: the DNA report. The Public Prosecutor contended that the DNA evidence, which indicated the accused's involvement, was a scientific fact that could not be discarded. The state argued that the acquittal was based on the technicality of the prosecutrix turning hostile, and the scientific evidence should have been given precedence.

High Court's Rationale and Legal Precedents

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, after a thorough review of the case records and legal precedents, upheld the trial court's decision. The central question addressed by the court was whether an accused can be convicted solely on the basis of a DNA report when there are no specific allegations of sexual assault from the prosecutrix.

The Court relied on two key judgments from the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court:

• Dalla Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan (2022): In this case, the court had held that a conviction cannot be based solely on a DNA report, which is a "corroborative piece of evidence," not substantive proof. The court also clarified that the presumption of guilt under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act can only be invoked after the prosecution has first established that a sexual assault was committed.

• Bhagwan Bairwa Vs. State of Rajasthan (2023): The Division Bench reiterated that a DNA report is "merely an opinion of the expert and its evidentiary value is only corroborative." It was deemed unsafe to base a conviction solely on such evidence, particularly when the prosecutrix and her family do not support the prosecution's case.

Citing these precedents, which are themselves based on Supreme Court rulings, Justice Dhand observed:

> "On several occasions it has been held that a person cannot be convicted solely on the basis of DNA report and the same cannot be treated as corroborative piece of evidence. The presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act can be drawn only when the prosecution succeeds to prove that any sexual assault has been committed with the victim by the accused."

Final Verdict and Implications

Finding no error in the trial court's judgment, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court affirmed that in the absence of primary evidence of sexual assault from the victim herself, the DNA report could not independently prove the crime.

The appeal filed by the State was consequently rejected, and the acquittal of Shyam Kumar was confirmed. This judgment serves as a vital reminder of the evidentiary hierarchy in criminal law, underscoring that while scientific evidence is important, it is meant to corroborate direct evidence, not replace it entirely.