IMPORTANT POINT
The integrity and chain of custody of DNA evidence are crucial for its admissibility in court, and failure to establish these can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

(Neeraj P. Dhote, J.)

1. This Criminal Appeal, filed under Section 374[2] of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.PC’] challenges the Appellant’s conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, vide Judgment and Order dated 03/03/2022, in Special [POCSO] Case No.43/2016, as under :-

“(i) The accused – Nivrutti Nagorao Hange is convicted under Section 235 of Cr.PC for the commission of offence under Section 3(a) punishable under section 4, and the offences under Sections 5(j) (ii), 5(l), 5(n), 5(p) punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

(ii) The accused – Nivrutti Nagorao Hange is convicted under Section 235 of Cr.PC for the charge of commission of offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life and to pay fine Rs.3000/-; in default of payment of fine the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

(iii) The accused – Nivrutti Nagorao Hange is convicted under Section 235 of Cr.PC for the charge of commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer an imprisonment for life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life and to pay fine Rs.3000/-; in default of payment of fine the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

(iv) All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.”

2. The Prosecution’s case as revealed from the Police Report is as under :-

[I] The Prosecutrix, hail from Village Martandwadi, Taluka Palam, District Parbhani. For education purpose she had come to reside at Aurangabad with her eldest married sister, from the year 2009. The Appellant was her brother-in-law [husband of sister]. At the relevant time, she was taking education in 8th standard. Her sister was a working woman and her sister had school going children. The Appellant, taking disadvantage of the situation, committed sexual intercourse with the Prosecutrix. The Appellant threatened the Prosecutrix with the consequence that, he will discontinue her education and kill her sister. Due to the threat, the Prosecutrix did not disclose the repeated sexual intercourse by the Appellant on her. After some months, the Prosecutrix had stomach ache and vomiting, therefore, her sister took her for medical examination. Sonography was advised by the Doctor. The medical examination revealed that the Prosecutrix was pregnant. On inquiry by the sister, the Prosecutrix disclosed her the sexual act by the Appellant on her. The Prosecutrix was admitted to the Hospital. She aborted naturally a non-viable foetus. On the statement of the Prosecutrix, the criminal law was set in motion and Crime bearing No.275/2013 came to be registered against the Appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 3(a), 4, 5(j)(2), 5(l), 5(n), 5(p), 5(q) and 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the POCSO Act’]

[II] The Investigating Machinery recorded supplementary statement of the Prosecutrix, statements of the witnesses, conducted the Spot Panchnama, collected the medical papers, referred the Prosecutrix for radio-logical test, collected the documents relating to her age from the school, got the blood samples of Prosecutrix and samples of foetus collected and referred for Chemical Analysis. Since the Appellant was not traceable, Charge-sheet came to be submitted on 18/02/2016 under Section 299 of Cr.PC. Subsequently, the Appellant came to be arrested on 11/04/2017. The Appellant was medically examined. His blood samples were collected and the same were referred for Chemical Analysis. Supplementary Charge-sheet came to be filed against the Appellant. The reports from the Chemical Analyser were received which were submitted before the trial Court.

3. After committal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the Charge