The Delhi High Court has held that the absence of DNA matching evidence in a rape case does not automatically undermine the prosecution’s case when there are credible reasons, such as the use of a condom by the accused and a significant delay in conducting the medical examination, to explain the lack of DNA evidence. The decision was delivered by a bench presided over by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna in a criminal appeal filed by a man convicted for repeatedly raping a minor girl. The accused had challenged his conviction and sentence on the basis that the forensic science laboratory report did not show a DNA match between him and the prosecutrix, arguing that this lack of scientific corroboration should cast doubt on the prosecution’s case.
In examining the appeal, the High Court noted that the forensic report, which was a key piece of evidence, indicated that the DNA of the appellant did not match the DNA of the prosecutrix. However, the court observed that the prosecutrix, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, had stated that the accused had used a condom during the alleged acts. The High Court found this admission to be a significant factor that could reasonably account for the absence of semen or a DNA match in the forensic analysis. The court reasoned that the use of contraceptives like a condom by the accused could explain why the forensic samples did not yield matching DNA profiles, and such scientific gaps should not be viewed in isolation without considering the broader context of the evidence presented.
The court also took into account the circumstances surrounding the timing of the alleged offences and the subsequent medical examination of the victim. According to the prosecution’s case, the alleged acts of rape occurred during the early hours of the morning, and it was only much later in the afternoon that the police were informed and the victim was taken to a hospital for examination. The High Court highlighted that this substantial time gap between the occurrence of the alleged offences and the collection of medical and forensic samples could reasonably lead to the degradation or loss of biological evidence, thereby making it understandable that the DNA samples did not match. The bench underscored that procedural delays and the passage of time are factors that can significantly affect the availability and reliability of forensic evidence in cases involving sexual offences, especially where minor victims are involved.
The appellant had been convicted at trial for repeatedly raping a thirteen-year-old prosecutrix over a period of several days. The offences were said to have taken place over a week, and the accused was reportedly apprehended by the victim’s maternal grandmother on the eighth day of the alleged abuse. The trial court had sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a term of twelve years for offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. In dismissing the appellant’s challenge, the High Court upheld both the conviction and the sentence, affirming that the lack of DNA matching did not by itself vitiate the entire prosecution case where other credible evidence was available.
In its reasoning, the High Court emphasised that the testimonial evidence provided by the prosecutrix must be considered in its entirety and not selectively. The bench observed that the prosecutrix’s testimony was consistent and reliable, and that she had withstood the test of cross-examination despite her young age of thirteen. The court held that when the testimony of a victim is consistent and credible, it forms a substantial part of the evidence against the accused, especially in sexual offence cases where direct forensic evidence may not always be available or conclusive due to various legitimate reasons such as delayed reporting and biological evidence degradation.
The High Court’s order clarified that scientific evidence, while significant, is only one part of the totality of evidence in sexual offence cases. The bench made clear that the absence of a DNA match, particularly under circumstances where the complainant has given a plausible explanation and where other evidence supports the prosecution’s case, should not automatically lead to acquittal or discredit the entire case. The court’s decision reaffirmed the principle that courts must examine and weigh all relevant evidence collectively, including both forensic and testimonial evidence, in determining the guilt or innocence of an accused in rape cases. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were upheld.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.