Corroborated Testimonies With Medical Evidence Overrides Negative DNA Findings: Gauhati High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction
Bench observed that while a positive DNA report serves as clinching evidence, a negative result does not automatically mandate acquittal.
The Gauhati High Court has upheld conviction of three accused for aggravated sexual assault under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, holding that corroborated testimony of a minor victim along with medical evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction even in the absence of matching DNA evidence.
The Court observed that while a positive DNA report serves as clinching evidence, a negative result does not automatically mandate acquittal if other cogent evidence on record establishes the commission of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The Bench noted that the weight of medical findings and eyewitness accounts can bridge the evidentiary gap created by forensic reports.
Justice Pranjal Das observed, “In view of the testimony of the prosecutrix, corroborated by her section 164 CrPC statement; the testimony of her brother who was part eyewitness; the corroboration rendered by the medical findings – it has to be held that the prosecution has successfully proved the factum of sexual assault upon the victim by the appellants. In any case, as far as the DNA evidence is concerned, it is not stated that the DNA sample which was taken from the innerwear of the victim and matched with the blood sample of the convict appellants pertain to any DNA/body material of the appellants”.
“The DNA sample taken from the innerwear of the victim could be her DNA as well. And not necessarily the DNA belonging to any or more of the appellants. There is no error in my opinion in the appreciation of evidence of the Learned Trial Court on the aspect of the DNA evidence”, the Bench noted further.
Advocate K. R. Patgiri appeared for the appellant and P. Borthakur, Additional Public Prosecutor and Advocate Dr. P. Agarwal, Amicus Curiae appeared for the respondent.
The prosecution alleged that on January 31, 2013, at approximately 10 PM, the three appellants forcibly entered the house of the 14-year-old victim while her parents were attending a village meeting. The appellants allegedly dragged the victim to a nearby paddy field and committed penetrative sexual assault upon her one after the other. The victim’s younger brother, who was present at the house, was pushed aside by the accused during the abduction. An FIR was subsequently lodged on the same night after the parents returned and were informed of the incident.
The Special Judge (POCSO), Kamrup, Amingaon, convicted the three appellants under Section 6 of the POCSO Act on June 5, 2024, and sentenced them to ten years of rigorous imprisonment on June 7, 2024. The appellants challenged this conviction before the High Court through three separate criminal appeals, which were heard and disposed of via a common judgment.
The defence had argued that the DNA found in the underwear of the victim did not match with the DNA of the other three samples, which were from the blood samples collected from the three appellants.
The Court found the victim's testimony (PW-1) to be consistent, reliable, and corroborated by her prior statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. Crucial corroboration was provided by the victim's younger brother (PW-3), who witnessed the abduction, and the medical officer (PW-6), who found swollen margins and tears in the hymen, indicating sexual assault. Regarding the victim's age, the Court held that the oral testimony of the parents and the victim, supported by a radiological medical opinion placing her between 14 and 16 years, sufficiently proved her minority.
“The testimony of PW-6, MO about finding tears in the hymen with margins swollen and tender is an extremely important piece of evidence in favour of the prosecution, especially when it is clear that the victim was examined on the next day of the incident. Thus, it can be said that the testimony of the MO has not been demolished in cross-examination. Therefore, the medical evidence is definitely indicative of a sexual activity by way of assault and lends crucial and significant corroboration to the testimony of PW-1, the victim, her statement under section 164 CrPC, the testimony of her brother and that of her parents”.
Addressing the negative DNA report, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sunil v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017) 4 SCC 393, holding that forensic results are supplementary to substantive evidence.
The defense's theory of false implication due to a prior village dispute was rejected as unconvincing and unsupported by the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.
Accordingly, the Court held that there was no infirmity in the trial court's findings. Consequently, the conviction of the appellants under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and the substantive sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment were upheld and confirmed. The appeals were dismissed as devoid of merit.
Cause Title: Nripen Rabha v. State of Assam and Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026:GAU-AS:3874]
Appearances:
Appellant: K. R. Patgiri and B. G. Sarma, Advocates
Respondents: Borthakur, Addl. P.P. and Dr. P. Agarwal, Amicus Curiae.