Positive DNA Report Not Sufficient To Sustain POCSO Conviction If Complainant's Age Is Not Proved: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a conviction order under POCSO Act based merely on a positive DNA report is not sustainable, especially when the age of the complainant/prosecutrix remains unproven. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 251]

The division bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Singh observed that father of the prosecutrix had stated that his marriage was performed nineteen years prior to the date of incident and after one year of his marriage, his first child i.e. the prosecutrix was born. However the mother had said that her marriage was solemnized twenty years prior to the date of the incident and that the prosecutrix was born two years thereafter. 

"Thus, on account of the testimony of mother of prosecutrix (PW-2) and father of prosecutrix (PW-3), it is evident that the prosecutrix (PW-1) was adult at the time of the incident," the court said.

It also noted that school admission record of Class-2 did not conclusively establish that the date of birth recorded therein was correctly entered. 

It thus said:

Thus, when the aforesaid evidence is examined from this perspective then it is apparent that the prosecutrix (PW-1) was a consenting adult and, therefore, mere positivity of the DNA report, by itself, is not sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant". 

An appeal was filed against POCSO court judgment convicting the appellant for kidnapping (Section 363), abduction (Section 366) and rape (Section 376) of IPC, along with relevant provisions of the POCSO Act. 

The counsel for the appellant contended that it was a case of consensual relations between two adults, noting that the complainant had herself called the appellant. The counsel further argued that the appellant was convicted merely based on the positivie DNA report, which itself is not sufficient to record a conviction. 

The counsel for the State argued that the Class 10 mark sheet of the prosecutrix showed her date of birth as December 27, 2007, while the incident took place in April 2024. Thus, the prosecutrix was 16 and a half years old at the time. 

The court however said:

"Contrary to the aforesaid, there is other evidence on record, namely, the testimony of the father of the prosecutrix (PW-3), who states that he had admitted his daughter to L.K.G in the year 2014. The Class-X marksheet is of the year 2023. Ordinarily, a student undergoes approximately twelve years of formal schooling before appearing in the Class-X examination. If the prosecutrix (PW-1) was admitted to L.K.G. only in the year 2014, it would be difficult to reconcile as to how she could have completed the requisite period of formal education and appeared in the Class-X examination in the year 2023. Thus, the evidence on record gives rise to a serious doubt regarding the correctness of the date of birth of the prosecutrix...
Thus, when the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C and her testimony before the Court are read conjointly then it becomes evident that the prosecutrix  was a consenting party". 

The court noted that the prosecution had failed to "satisfactorily" prove the prosecutrix's date of birth. It also failed to produce any document relating to the earliest school entry. Therefore, the age of the prosecutrix remained disputed. 

Thus, the court held that a conviction cannot be sustained merely based on a positive DNA report. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction order was set aside. 

Case Title: Munna Ram v State of Madhya Pradesh, CRA-1920-2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 251

For Petitioner: Advocate Ravindra Pratap Singh

For State: Government Advocate Abhishek Singh

Click here to read/download the Order