Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.
Rabi Das @ Rabindra Nath Das – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Another – Respondents
C.R.R. 649 of 2017 With CRAN 2/2017 (Old CRAN 3544/2017)
Decided on : 06-05-2024
Discharge - Rape Allegation - IPC Sections 376(2)(i), 506; POCSO Act Section 4 - The court emphasized that a DNA report indicating non-paternity does not negate the possibility of rape, which requires evidence from both sides to establish guilt or innocence.
Fact of the Case:
The accused sought discharge from a criminal case of rape based on a DNA report showing he is not the biological father of the victim's child, claiming the allegations are false.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the DNA report does not conclusively prove innocence regarding the rape allegations, which require a thorough examination of evidence from both parties.
Issues: Whether the accused can be discharged from the case solely based on the DNA report indicating he is not the biological father of the child.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that allegations of rape must be substantiated by evidence beyond a DNA report, which is not conclusive in establishing innocence.
Result: The revisional application was dismissed, upholding the lower court's decision to not discharge the accused.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The court emphasized that a DNA report indicating non-paternity does not automatically exonerate an accused from rape allegations, which require comprehensive evidence from both sides to establish guilt or innocence (!) .
The accused sought discharge from the case based on a DNA report showing he is not the biological father of the victim's child, claiming the allegations are false and that the DNA report supports his innocence (!) (!) .
The lower court rejected the discharge petition, stating that the DNA report alone is not conclusive proof of innocence regarding the rape allegations, which involve complex factual and legal considerations requiring evidence from both sides (!) (!) .
The court noted that the allegations of rape involve multiple instances and are supported by statements recorded under legal procedures and medical examinations, establishing a prima facie case (!) (!) .
The court clarified that DNA analysis is corroborative and not conclusive evidence in rape cases; substantive evidence from witnesses and other sources is necessary for conviction or acquittal (!) .
The revisional application filed by the accused challenging the lower court's decision was dismissed, affirming that the rejection of discharge solely based on the DNA report was correct and lawful (!) .
The case diary and related documents were considered, and the court upheld the view that the case involves serious allegations supported by evidence, justifying the continuation of proceedings (!) .
The court directed the return of the case diary to the relevant authorities and dismissed the revision petition without costs, confirming the procedural correctness of the lower court's order (!) .
The court highlighted that the allegations involve multiple occasions and threats, and the age of the victim at the time of the incident further substantiates the seriousness of the case (!) (!) .
Overall, the court reaffirmed that scientific reports like DNA tests are supportive but not definitive in criminal proceedings involving sexual offences, and the entire body of evidence must be considered (!) .
If you need further analysis or legal advice based on this document, please let me know.
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:
1. Rabi Das @ Rabindra Nath Das being an accused filed an application for discharge from the Criminal Case being S.C. 10(2) of 2016 arising out of Moyna Police Station Case No. 182 of 2015 dated 04.08.2015 under Sections 376(2)(i)/506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act relating to M.P. Case No. 859/2015 giving rise to G.R. Case No. 2006/2015 pending before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur on the ground that the DNA Report, collected from CFSL, has established that the present accused/petitioner is not the biological father of the child born to the victim. The allegation of rape is out and out false and he has been falsely entangled into this case.
2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties and considering the DNA Report as well as other surrounding circumstances of the allegation, came to a conclusion that he may not be a biological father of the child does not necessarily mean that he has not committed rape as alleged because to arrive at such decision, a mixed question of law and fact is required, which cannot be decided without adducing evidence from both sides and finally rejected his prayer for discharge on 16.01.2017 observing therein that at this stage it would be prejudiced the whole issue if the accused is discharged only on the basis of DNA Report since the allegation of the victim is that the accused has committed rape forcibly on several occasions on different dates.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said rejection order dated 16.01.2017, the present petitioner/accused filed this revisional application seeking for setting aside the impugned order dated 16.01.2017 as well as quashing of the aforesaid proceeding pending before the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur.
4. The brief facts are relevant for the purpose of disposal of this case as under:
4a. On 30.07.2015, the de-facto complainant filed a petition of complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk to the effect that his daughter aged about 14 years was a student of Class-VII. On 10.07.2015, the said daughter of the complainant felt illness in her school. Initially, she was treated by a quack doctor and, thereafter, she was further treated by Dr. B. K. Roy at Tamluk and came to know that his daughter found pregnant for 7/8 months. On asking, she disclosed that on 18.12.2014 at about 10 am, the petitioner/accused took her to his house forcibly and committed rape against her will and further threatened her if she disclosed the fact then she would be killed. The de-facto complainant also stated in his complaint that the present petitioner/accused committed rape upon her day by day in absence of the complainant and his wife. On the basis of direction passed by the learned Court below, the Police authority has treated the written complaint as an FIR, resulted in registration of a Moyna Police Station Case No. 182 of 2015 dated 04.08.2015 under Sections 376(2)(i)/506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act has been started against the present petitioner and cause investigation. Subsequently, a charge sheet has been submitted being Charge Sheet No. 29/2016 dated 09.02.2016 under Sections 376(2)(i)/506 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act against the petitioner and later on a supplementary charge sheet has been submitted after collecting the DNA Report in negative. Hence, the instant criminal revisional application.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent. The accusation made by the father of the victim is out and out false. Petitioner has been falsely implicated into this case. Such fa
AI
A DNA report indicating non-paternity does not absolve an accused from rape allegations, which require comprehensive evidence.
The court established that DNA testing is essential in cases of alleged false implication in sexual assault, balancing the rights of the accused and the victim.
Merely because the petitioner had offered to conduct DNA Test it would not mean that the complainant and the minor child can also be subjected to such test without their consent.
In sexual offences against minors, the victim's credible testimony can suffice for conviction, especially when corroborated by medical evidence, thus establishing statutory presumption of guilt.
(1) Rape – DNA evidence must be considered alongside corroborative circumstances and cannot form the sole basis of conviction – Torn hymen, in isolation, cannot be treated as conclusive evidence of s....
The court emphasized the limited scope of interference by the court in revisional jurisdiction against the order denying discharge and the need for sufficient material on record to frame the charge.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
