Back
DNA Report Without : Upholds of Rasikbhai Garasiya
In a significant ruling reinforcing the standards for scientific evidence in criminal trials, the dismissed the State's appeal against the of a man accused of repeatedly raping a minor girl. The Division Bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R.T. Vachhani held that a is if the scientific expert who conducted the examination is not produced and examined in court.
The Allegations and the
The case involved a victim who was 17 years and 10 months old at the time of the alleged offences. She was in a relationship with the respondent, Rasikbhai Garasiya, for about two years. The prosecution alleged that during this period, the accused repeatedly raped the victim, resulting in a pregnancy. He was further accused of giving her medicine to induce a miscarriage, which caused severe bleeding.
On , the victim was taken to a local health centre where she disclosed the relationship. An FIR was registered on under Sections 64(2)(m) and 89 of the , and Sections 4 and 6 of the . During the trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses, including the victim, and relied on 36 documents.
However, the victim turned hostile and denied having any physical relationship with the accused or that the pregnancy and miscarriage were caused by him. The trial court acquitted Garasiya, noting that the victim had not supported the prosecution case and that there was no acceptable evidence to prove the charges .
The State's Challenge and the Court's Analysis
The State of Gujarat appealed, arguing that the trial court had erred by discarding the medical evidence and the DNA analysis report, which clearly pointed to the accused's involvement. The State contended that the victim's minority meant her consent was irrelevant, and the scientific evidence should have been given due weight.
The High Court first outlined the in appeals: only and warrant reversal. It then examined the evidence.
The Crucial Issue: Admissibility of the DNA Report
The court noted that the victim, despite being declared hostile, had narrated the factum of her relationship with the accused but denied any physical relations or pregnancy caused by him. The was exhibited through the Investigating Officer, but the scientific expert who conducted the test was not produced as a witness.
Citing the 's decision in Rahul vs. State of Delhi (2023) 1 SCC 83, the High Court reiterated that a is in evidence if the expert who performed the examination is not examined in court. Mere exhibition through the Investigating Officer is insufficient, as the reliability of the techniques and the must be established through .
The court observed:
"It is settled position of law that
is
in evidence if the Scientific Expert who conducted the examination is not produced and examined by the prosecution in court. Mere exhibition of the report through the Investigating Officer is insufficient, as the
and the
must be established through
(
)."
Lack of Other Evidence
Apart from the DNA report, the court found no other evidence linking the accused to the crime. The victim did not admit the contents of her statement recorded under (equivalent to ). The court noted that merely having an affair does not prove that the victim became pregnant due to repeated sexual intercourse by the accused.
Decision and Implications
Finding no perversity in the trial court's order, the High Court dismissed the appeal at the admission stage. The of Rasikbhai Garasiya stands confirmed.
This judgment serves as a crucial reminder that scientific evidence, no matter how compelling, must be proved in accordance with law. The failure to examine the expert witness can render DNA reports useless in court, even in sensitive cases involving minors. It also underscores that a and lack of can lead to , despite serious allegations.
Case Title:
R/CR.A/1231/2026, decided on
