A criminal conviction cannot rely solely on scientific evidence if the chain of custody is flawed. Unexplained delays in sample processing cast doubt on the integrity of forensic findings, rendering them insufficient for conviction when material witnesses turn hostile and foundational facts remain unproven.

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal is filed challenging the judgment of conviction dated 22.09.2022 (hereafter ‘impugned judgment’) and order on sentence dated 29.11.2022 (hereafter ‘impugned order on sentence’), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in SC No. 9503/2016 arising out of FIR No. 322/2016 (‘FIR’), registered at Police Station Sagarpur.

2. By the impugned judgment, the appellant was held convicted for the offences under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’).

3. By the impugned order on sentence, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years and to pay a fine of ₹20,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

4. The brief facts of the case are as under:

4.1. On 01.07.2016, a complaint was made by the brother of the victim, who was fourteen years of age at that time, in regard to her being missing from the house since 11 AM. It was alleged that a sum of ₹2 lakhs in cash, clothes and ID proofs of the victim were also missing. This led to registration of FIR for the offence under Section 363 of the IPC.

4.2. Subsequently, on 07.07.2016, a PCR call was received that a girl had been traced and her description matched with the victim. The victim was produced before the concerned SHO, whereafter, she was counselled and sent for medical examination. During medical examination, the victim told the doctor that she had left the house of her own will and the accused was known to her since the last one month. The victim allegedly also informed that the appellant had taken her to his house and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her on 01.07.2016 and 02.07.2016. On 07.07.2016, the victim’s father produced one red bag containing some clothes, pink purse, Samsung phone and ₹62,000/-. On the same day, place of incident was inspected at the instance of the victim and the appellant was arrested.

4.3. Age proof of the victim was collected from her school wherein her date of birth was found to be 17.01.2001 as per the school record.

4.4. On 08.07.2016, the victim’s statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) was recorded where she stated that she had gone from her home on 01.07.2016 and met with the appellant, who took her to his home. She stated that the appellant purchased a Scooty from her money and also raped her for two days without her consent. On 07.07.2016, she left the house of the appellant, whereafter, her parents found her and a call was made to the police.

4.5. The victim deviated from her earlier statements during recording of her evidence and claimed that her statements about having physical relations with the appellant on 01.07.2016 and 02.07.2016 was given under pressure of her parents. The parents of the victim also deposed that the victim had not told them about having any physical relation with the appellant.

4.6. By the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court found that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the case against the appellant. It was noted that although the victim had ultimately denied that she had any sexual intercourse with the appellant, she had admitted to staying with the appellant. It was also noted that the victim had stated that she wa