Section 164 CrPC Statement Not Substantive Evidence; DNA Report Requires Strict Chain of Custody: Chhattisgarh High Court - 2025-04-03

Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case, Emphasizing Limits of Section 164 Statements and Scrutiny of DNA Evidence

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – In a recent judgment, a Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court, comprising Justices Sanjay K. Agrawal and Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal , overturned a lower court's conviction in a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act case. The High Court, in its judgment delivered on February 12, 2025, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1790, 1812, and 1722 of 2019, acquitted Ramsingh Salam , Vijan Mandal , and Mankumari Yadav , who were previously convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kondagaon.

Case Overview: Hostile Witnesses and Reliance on Circumstantial Evidence

The prosecution's case hinged on a complaint alleging that Ramsingh Salam had sexual relations with a minor victim under the false pretext of marriage, resulting in pregnancy and subsequent abortion. Vijan Mandal was accused of performing the illegal abortion, and Mankumari Yadav , the victim's aunt, was charged with concealing information about the crime.

However, during the trial, the victim, along with her father and brother, turned hostile, failing to support the prosecution’s narrative. Despite this, the trial court convicted the accused, primarily relying on the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and a DNA test report.

Arguments on Appeal: Challenging Evidentiary Basis

Appellants' counsel, including Mr. Rajesh Jain , Mr. P. K. Tulsyan , and Ms. Katyayani Vishnupriya , argued that the trial court erred in convicting the appellants based on the victim’s Section 164 statement and the DNA report. They contended that a Section 164 statement is not substantive evidence and that there were discrepancies in the handling of DNA samples, raising doubts about the reliability of the DNA report.

The State, represented by Mr. H. A. P. S. Bhatia , Panel Lawyer, defended the trial court’s judgment, asserting that the DNA report conclusively established Ramsingh Salam 's paternity of the aborted fetus, thus proving the offences.

High Court's Observations: Section 164 Statement and DNA Evidence Scrutiny

The High Court meticulously examined the evidentiary value of Section 164 statements and DNA reports in light of established legal principles. Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal , writing for the bench, emphasized that statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC are not substantive evidence as per Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. Citing precedents like Brijbhusan Singh v. Emperor and Ram Kishan Singh v. Harmit Kaur , the court reiterated that such statements can only be used for corroboration or contradiction of a witness's court testimony, not as primary proof of facts.

> "From the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, it is quite vivid that statement of a person/witness under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is not an evidence, much less, substantial evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act and it can be used only for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction. In absence of any other legally admissible evidence corroborating the evidence under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., no conviction can be made on the basis of statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C."

Regarding the DNA evidence, the High Court highlighted the necessity for a stringent chain of custody and adherence to procedural safeguards outlined in Sections 53A and 164A of the CrPC and elaborated upon in Supreme Court judgments like Anil alias Anthony Arikswamy Joseph v. State of Maharashtra and Mukesh and another v. State (NCT of Delhi) . The court noted a 4-5 day unexplained delay in sending the blood samples to the forensic laboratory and the prosecution's failure to examine key witnesses involved in sample collection and deposition.

> "In the present case, no evidence has been presented by the prosecution regarding when, where and how the blood samples were kept in safe custody from the date of collection on 25/04/2019 & 26/04/2019 till the date of deposition to the Laboratory on 30/04/2019. No satisfactory explanation has been brought on record for the delay of 4-5 days from the time of taking the samples to depositing the same in the laboratory… In such a situation, in the light of aforesaid judgments, the DNA report (Ex.P-31) cannot be accepted as valid piece of evidence as the possibility of tampering with the samples cannot be ruled out. Thus, the conviction on the basis of the DNA test report cannot be said to be justified."

Referencing Rahul v. State of Delhi , the High Court underscored that even DNA evidence is opinion evidence and requires rigorous proof of reliability, including proper collection, sealing, and chain of custody. The unexplained delay and missing witness testimonies pertaining to sample handling rendered the DNA report unreliable in this case.

Verdict and Implications: Acquittal Based on Evidentiary Lapses

Ultimately, the Chhattisgarh High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the trial court’s judgment, and acquitted all three appellants. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to the lack of substantial evidence. Ramsingh Salam , who was in jail, was ordered to be released immediately, while bail bonds for Vijan Mandal and Mankumari Yadav were maintained for six months under Section 437A CrPC.

This judgment reinforces the crucial principles of evidence law, particularly the limited evidentiary value of Section 164 CrPC statements and the rigorous standards for accepting DNA evidence in criminal trials. It serves as a reminder of the prosecution's burden to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt with reliable and admissible evidence, especially when key witnesses turn hostile.