Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the alleged crime, including establishing the integrity of DNA evidence and eyewitness testimonies.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. - Whether the Appellant was the perpetrator of the offence of rape, is what this Court is required to determine in the instant matter.

2. Before delving into a discussion on this aspect, the facts of the case are briefly being traversed. On 10.05.2020, P.W.2 lodged a Complaint, Exhibit 4, of the same date, before the Mangan Police Station informing therein that the Victim, his sister, aged about 12 years at the time of the incident had been impregnated by the Appellant. That, he had been informed of this fact by P.W.3, the Accredited Social Health Activist (ASHA) of the area. Based on Exhibit 4, the Mangan Police Station registered FIR Case No.07(05)2020, dated 10.05.2020, under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, the “POCSO Act”), against the Appellant, following which the I.O., P.W.17 took up the matter for investigation. On completion of investigation, finding prima facie case under Section 376 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, the “IPC”) read with Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, Charge-Sheet was accordingly submitted against the Appellant.

3. Before the Learned Trial Court, the Appellant pleaded “not guilty” to the Charges framed against him under Section 5 11 of the IPC, Section 5 (j)(ii) and (l) punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 375 of the IPC punishable under Section 376 of the IPC. The Learned Trial Court having duly considered the evidence including that of seventeen Prosecution Witnesses concluded that the Prosecution was unable to prove the Charge against the Appellant under Section 5 11 of the IPC, Sections 5 (j)(ii) and (l) of the POCSO Act, but succeeded in bringing home the Charge under Section 375 punishable under Section 376 of the IPC. On closure of Prosecution evidence, the Appellant was afforded an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him and his Statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the “Cr.P.C.”). He did not seek to examine any Witnesses in his defence.

4. Before this Court Learned Counsel for the Appellant while emphasizing that the Appellant had not committed the offence put forth a two-pronged argument, the first being that, as per the Victim, she was raped by the Appellant in the month of December, 2019 and January, 2020, but gave birth to the girl child in the month of May, 2020 on which count alone the Prosecution case is demolished. Secondly, although the Prosecution claims that the DNA Profiling of the Appellant and the child born to the Victim matches, the evidence on record clearly indicates that the Prosecution has failed by way of cogent proof to establish that any blood was drawn from the Appellant for the purposes of DNA Profiling. Drawing the attention of this Court to Exhibit 17 a Letter addressed to the Director, Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD), Hyderabad, Telangana, it was urged that the specimen blood of the Appellant, as per the document, was drawn by Dr. Dawa Dolma Bhutia, District Hospital Mangan, allegedly under the Requisition of the I.O. The said Doctor was not examined as a Prosecution Witness to substantiate this aspect. That, Exhibit 21 the “Identification Form” pertaining to the Appellant does not disclose the date of collection of his Blood Sample while Exhibit 13 the Blood Sample Collection Form of the Victim and Exhibit 14 the Blood Sample Collection of the girl child, it was contended, bear not only the date of sample collection but is duly countersigned by Dr. O.T. Lepcha, who wa