Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Rape Conviction After DNA Test Initially Opposed By Accused Disproves His Paternity
The High Court observed that the refusal of the accused to voluntarily undergo the test could not defeat the pursuit of truth, and emphasised that scientific evidence, when obtained under judicial direction, prevails over presumptions.
The Gauhati High Court set aside the conviction of a man under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code after a DNA test, which the accused had initially opposed, conclusively excluded him from paternity of the prosecutrix’s child, thereby disproving the allegation against him.
The Court was hearing an appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court, which had convicted the appellant of rape and sentenced him to imprisonment based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Anjan Moni Kalita, while acquitting the accused, observed that “as can be seen from the DNA test/profiling done on the appellant and the child, the appellant is not the father of the child. As such, the very basis for the learned Trial Court to have convicted the appellant does not have any legs to stand on."
Senior Advocate H.R.H. Choudhury represented the appellant, while B. Bhuyan, APP, Assam, appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Background
The case arose out of an FIR lodged by the prosecutrix alleging that the appellant had committed rape, resulting in her pregnancy. Notably, the prosecutrix had denied seeing the accused during the commission of the offence due to darkness and had relied on the testimony of other women from her village to file a complaint against the accused. The trial court, relying principally on her deposition, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to imprisonment.
During the trial, the prosecution sought a DNA test to ascertain the paternity of the child born to the prosecutrix. The appellant had initially opposed this request. However, the High Court directed the test, and the result unequivocally ruled out the appellant’s paternity.
Challenging the conviction, the appellant contended before the High Court that the reliance on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix was misplaced, especially when contradicted by reliable scientific evidence.
Court’s Observations
The Gauhati High Court began by examining the permissibility of directing a DNA test when the accused was unwilling to undergo it. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court distinguished between traditional blood group testing and modern DNA profiling, noting that DNA evidence is scientifically accurate and of immense value in discovering the truth.
The Bench highlighted that statutory provisions such as Sections 53A and 164A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Sections 52 and 184 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) expressly recognise and provide for DNA analysis in cases of sexual assault.
While emphasising that constitutional protections under Articles 20(3) and 21 are sacrosanct, the Bench observed that, “the same cannot over-ride the search for the truth, as the same is allowed in terms of Section 53A Cr.P.C (Section 52 BNSS)”.
Proceeding on this basis, the Court noted that pursuant to its earlier direction, a DNA test was conducted by the Directorate of Forensic Science with all necessary safeguards and that the report, submitted before the Court, conclusively found that the accused was not the biological father of the child.
The Court also examined the testimony of the prosecutrix. While she alleged sexual assault, her cross-examination revealed that she had not actually seen the assailant’s face because of darkness. The name of the accused, as the Court observed, had surfaced only through another villager who was not examined as a witness. The Bench pointedly remarked that “there is a huge gap as to how the victim came to the conclusion that the appellant was the rapist.”
While assessing whether the prosecutrix’s testimony could stand on its own, the Court reiterated that while her testimony carries weight, it must be of sterling quality and consistent with other evidence. However, in light of the DNA report disproving paternity and the absence of corroborative testimony, the evidence could not be treated as sufficient to sustain conviction, the Court observed
Conclusion
Setting aside the trial court’s order, the High Court acquitted the appellant of all charges under Section 376 IPC.
“Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are set aside, and he is acquitted of all charges. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case,” the Bench concluded.
Cause Title: Sudip Biswas Bura Vs The State of Assam And Another (Neutral Citation: GAHC010031352023 2025:GAU-AS:13058-DB)
Appearances
Petitioner: Senior Advocate H.R.A. Choudhury with Advocate A. Ahmed
Respondents: Advocate B. Bhuyan, APP, Assam