2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 30

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Mahajan, J
Akhtar Hussain – Appellant
Versus
State Nct Of Delhi – Respondent
CRL.A. 442/2025 | CRL.M.(BAIL) 768/2025

A conviction for sexual assault may be sustained solely on robust forensic DNA evidence and an unbroken chain of custody, even when material witnesses have turned hostile, provided the accused fails to rebut statutory presumptions or offer a plausible explanation for the forensic findings.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 4, 29 and 30 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 363, 376 and 506 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 161, 164, 294 and 374 - Sexual assault of a minor - Conviction based on scientific evidence - Hostile witnesses - Statutory presumptions under special statutes.

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - High Court is duty-bound to evaluate evidence on record independently and arrive at its own findings regarding culpability, ensuring the decision is supported by sound reasoning without being cryptic.

(C) Evidence - Hostile Witnesses - The subsequent resiling of material witnesses from their initial statements does not necessarily result in the collapse of the prosecution’s case if initial disclosures, forensic reports, and medical examinations form a consistent, unbroken chain of evidence.

(D) Scientific Evidence - DNA Profiling - The presence of the accused's DNA on internal body parts of the victim, supported by an unbroken chain of custody, serves as primary incriminating material. Failure of the accused to offer an explanation regarding DNA findings, coupled with the inability to attribute physical injuries to an alleged accident, justifies conviction irrespective of witness hostility.

Facts of the case:
The victim, a child, allegedly suffered sexual assault by a relative. Initially, in reports to the police and in statements under the statute, the victim implicated the accused. However, during the trial, the victim and family members turned hostile, claiming the injuries sustained by the girl resulted from an accidental fall from a motorcycle. The trial court relied on medical records, forensic analysis of biological samples, and the consistency of the initial complaint to convict the accused.

Findings of Court:
The forensic report, confirmed by an unbroken chain of custody, established that the genetic profile found on the victim matched that of the accused. The court observed that the injuries were inconsistent with a fall from a motorcycle and there was no evidence of vehicular damage or physical injury to the accused, rendering the defense version implausible.

Issues: Whether conviction can be maintained primarily through forensic evidence when material witnesses have resiled from their earlier statements, and whether the presumption under special legislation holds when the accused is a known relative.

Ratio Decidendi: Scientific evidence, particularly DNA analysis, coupled with an unbroken chain of forensic custody, provides a sufficient foundation to sustain a conviction. The court held that where initial disclosures of the victim are corroborated by forensic findings, the subsequent hostility of witnesses does not negate the guilt, particularly when the accused fails to provide a plausible explanation for the forensic findings.

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.