SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Mad) 991

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT 
N.ANAND VENKATESH, K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ. 
Murugan - Appellants 
Versus
The State, rep. by The Inspector of Police – Respondent 
Crl. A(MD)No.1034 of 2023 
Decided On : 05-06-2026 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.Mayilvahana Rajendran
For the Respondent: Mr.D.Venkatesh

DNA evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction in sexual assault cases even if victims turn hostile, provided the chain of custody is intact. In the absence of corroboration regarding repeated offences, charges may be reduced and sentences modified while maintaining the underlying conviction.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act - Sections 5 and 6 - Evidence and admissibility of DNA analysis - Chain of custody and procedural integrity - Conviction on the basis of biological evidence in the absence of witness support - Alteration of charges to reflect findings of a single act of offence.

(B) Appellate courts - Power to modify sentences and convictions - Scope for re-evaluating evidence regarding severity of offences - Entitlement of the accused to fair disclosure of forensic reports.

Facts of the case:
An individual faced trial for the penetrative sexual assault of a minor, which resulted in pregnancy and the birth of a child. Throughout the trial, the victim and parents turned hostile and withdrew their support for the prosecution. The trial court relied on DNA evidence proving the paternity of the child to secure a conviction. The appeal challenged the admissibility of the DNA report, citing concerns over the chain of custody, the non-disclosure of documents during the investigation phase, and the lack of witness corroboration for the specific charge of repeated sexual assault.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the DNA report established a definitive link between the accused and the child, serving as crucial evidence. The procedural challenges regarding sample collection and custodial handling were dismissed as the accused had failed to raise these objections during trial proceedings. However, the court found that as witnesses turned hostile, the evidence was insufficient to sustain the charge of repeated assault. Furthermore, the court determined that the conviction for criminal intimidation was unsupported by evidence due to witness hostility.

Issues: Whether forensic biological evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction when primary witnesses become hostile; whether the absence of evidence for repeated criminal acts necessitates an alteration of the charge; whether the procedural handling of forensic samples and document disclosure warrants an acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: DNA profiling, when properly conducted with a clear chain of custody and subjected to meaningful cross-examination, serves as reliable evidence of paternity and culpability in sexual offences. When evidence is insufficient to verify the habitual nature of an offence due to witness hostility, courts should modify the conviction to a singular act of the same nature rather than acquitting the accused, while ensuring sentencing is proportionate to the established offence.

Result: Appeal partly allowed. Conviction modified to a single offence of penetrative assault with a sentence of 20 years of rigorous imprisonment; the conviction for criminal intimidation was set aside.

Table of Content
1. summary of trial history and establishment of prosecution foundational facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
2. conflicting contentions regarding dna evidence chain of custody and evidentiary disclosure. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
3. admissibility and reliance on dna evidence despite hostile witnesses and procedural challenges. (Para 17 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
4. alteration of charges and modification of sentencing based on evidence. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT :

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

The sole accused in the present appeal has assailed the judgement passed by the Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni, in Special S.C.No.27 of 2020, dated 31.07.2023, wherein the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the “Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012” (hereinafter referred to as “Act” for brevity) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment and was also convicted for offence under Section 506 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant, who was aged about 40 years, called the victim girl, who was aged about 13 years, to the house of one Balaji on 18.01.2020 at 2.00 PM and committed penetrative sexual assault on her. He also threatened the victim girl not to disclose the occurrence to anyone. The further case of the prosecution is that the appellant repeatedly committed the said offence and once again threatened the victim girl on 16.02.2020 not to reveal about the same to anyone.

3. The incident came to light and PW1, who is the mother of the victim girl, gave a complaint (Exhibit P6) to PW11 based on which an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.125 of 2020 (Exhibit P7) for offences under Section 5(l) r/w 6 of the Act and Section 506(1) of IPC.

4. The investigation was taken over by PW14 and the investigation officer went to the scene of crime on 29.03.2020 at about 11.00 AM and recorded the statements of the victim girl and her parents and others. An observation mahazar (Exhibit P11) and rough sketch (Exhibit P12) were prepared. The accused person was arrested on the same day at about 15.30 hours and he was produced before the concerned court and remanded to judicial custody.

5. PW14 proceeded to collect the school certificate (Exhibit P4) from the Headmaster of the Government High School (PW6). He ascertained the date of birth of the victim girl as 29.05.2006. The statement of the Headmaster was also recorded.

6. The victim girl was subjected to medical examination and the medical examination was conducted by PW12, who found that the victim girl was five weeks pregnant. The certificate of examination (Exhibit P8) was issued and the following finding has been rendered:

“Examination:

The person examined was moderately built and moderately nourished. Her physical and mental status was normal for her age. Her secondary sexual characters were well developed gives history of 02 months of ammenorhoea, Per abdomen examination – soft. Pervaginal examination hymen not intact, vagina admits one finger, no discharge. No external injuries over breast or genitalia Uterus – anteverted bulky. UPT – Positive.”

7. The victim girl was produced before the Judicial Magistrate and her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded (Exhibit P1).

8. After recording the statements of the witnesses under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C., and after completion of investigation, the police report came to be laid before the Special Court which was taken on file in Special S.C.No.27 of 2020.

9. The Special Court framed charges against the accused person for offences under Sections 5(l) r/w 6 of the Act, Section 506(2) and 506(1) of IPC. The accused person denied the charges when he was questioned.

10. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW14 and marked Exhibits P1 to P24.

1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top