Back
Positive DNA Report Alone Insufficient for POCSO Conviction When Age Remains Unproven: MP
The has delivered a significant ruling concerning the application of the , emphasizing that a positive DNA report does not automatically warrant a conviction if the prosecution fails to establish that the complainant was a minor at the time of the alleged incident. The division bench, comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh, set aside the conviction of an appellant who had been sentenced to twenty years of .
Case Background The appellant, Munna Ram, was convicted on , by the Special Judge (), Singrauli, under , and . The trial court had relied heavily on a positive DNA report to substantiate the charges. The background of the matter involved the leaving her home following a domestic dispute with her father and subsequently traveling to Banaras with the appellant, where they reportedly married and lived as husband and wife.
The Arguments Counsel for the appellant contended that the evidence pointed to a relationship between two consenting adults. Referring to testimonies from the (PW-1) and others, the defense argued that the had left home voluntarily, was well-acquainted with the accused, and had entered into a marriage ceremony. Crucially, the defense maintained that the prosecution failed to provide conclusive evidence of the 's age, as the school records were inconsistent and lacked primary source verification.
In opposition, the State relied on a Class-X marksheet (Exhibit P/5C), which recorded the 's date of birth as . The State argued that, based on this record, the was approximately sixteen and a half years old at the time of the incident in , thereby bringing the case under the purview of the .
Legal Analysis The ’s analysis centered on the reliability of the evidence presented regarding the age of the . The bench noted a stark contradiction between the testimonies of the parents (PW-2 and PW-3) regarding their marriage dates and the birth of their children. Furthermore, the court observed that the school records were unreliable, as there was no documentation of the 's early schooling (LKG or Class-I). Justice Agarwal remarked on the mathematical difficulty of reconciling the school admission timeline with the Class-X board examination data, highlighting a “serious doubt regarding the correctness of the date of birth.”
The bench held that, in the absence of solid evidence confirming minority status, the criminal nature of the relationship could not be presumed solely on the basis of a biological test.
Key Observations
The judgment is characterized by several pivotal observations:
*
"The
was a
. Further, her date of birth has not been satisfactorily proved by the prosecution."
*
"The admission record of Class-II does not conclusively establish that the date of birth recorded therein was correctly entered."
*
"Mere positivity of the DNA report, by itself, is not sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant."
*
"When the statement of the
(PW-1) recorded under
and her testimony before the Court are read conjointly then it becomes evident that the
(PW-1) was a
."
Decision and Implications Concluding that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case, the allowed the . The conviction was set aside, and the court ordered the immediate release of the appellant. This decision underscores the judiciary's insistence on high in cases involving young persons, reminding trial courts that technical data—such as DNA results—cannot substitute for the fundamental requirement of proving the age of the complainant when such age is a disputed element of the crime.
