DNA evidence requires proper documentation and chain of custody to be admissible; conviction cannot solely rely on such evidence without corroborating proof.

JUDGMENT :

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him, vide judgment dated 06.09.2021 in Spl.S.C.No.4 of 2018, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the POCSO Act, 2012, Vellore.

2.......

(i) It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant who was the relative of the victim aged about 17 years at the time of occurrence, had kidnapped her on 03.04.2013 at about 3.00 p.m., and took her to a bush near Murugan Temple and committed penetrative sexual assault; that thereafter, on 06.04.2013 committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim, promising that he would marry her, as a result of which the victim became pregnant.

(ii) On 20.02.2014, PW1, the step-father of the victim lodged a complaint [Ex.P8] to the respondent police. PW7, the Inspector of Police, registered the FIR in Cr.No.2 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 376, 417 and 506 of the IPC against the appellant. The FIR was marked as Ex.P9.

(iii) On 20.02.2014, PW7 went to the scene of the occurrence and prepared the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P10] and the Rough Sketch [Ex.P11] in the presence of witnesses. On the same day, she arrested the accused at 7.00 p.m., near Kodumampalli Bus Stand. She sent the victim and the accused for medical examination. Thereafter, after examination of all other accused, PW7 filed the final report on 25.06.2014 against the appellant for the offences under Sections 376(2)(h)(m), 417 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 r/w 5(l), 6 r/w 5(n), 6 r/w 5(j)(ii) of the Protection of Children from the Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act, 2012'], before the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram [Fast Track Mahila], Vellore, which was taken on file as Special S.C.No.4 of 2018.

(iv) On the appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., were complied with, and the trial Court framed charges against the appellant, and when questioned, the appellant pleaded 'not guilty'.

(v) To prove the case, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.9 and marked 11 exhibits as Exs.P1 to P11. When the appellant was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. The appellant examined one Devaraj, Village Chief [ehll; hik] as DW1 and did not mark any documents.

(vi) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt and held the appellant guilty of the offences under Section 417 of the IPC and Section 6 r/w 5(l) of the POCSO Act, 2012. The appellant was sentenced as follows:

Hence, the accused has preferred the appeal challenging the said conviction and sentence.

3. Heard, Mr.S.Shanmugasundaram, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though all the witnesses turned hostile, the trial Court had convicted the appellant on the basis of the DNA report, which is incorrect and relied upon the judgment of this Court in Chandra Mohan v. The State, Rep. by its Inspector of Police ,MANU/TN/7260/2023. He therefore prayed for acquittal of the ap