Negative DNA Report Only Disproves Paternity, Not Rape Charges: Tripura High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Despite Mismatch

A bench of Justice T Amarnath Goud and Justice S Datta Purkayastha clarified that a negative DNA test result can only exonerate the accused from the accusations regarding the paternity of the child, but it does not automatically exonerate the accused from the offence of Rape.

Holding thus, the Court upheld the conviction of the main accused under Sections 376 (2) (n)/506 of IP and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and a rigorous Life Imprisonment of 20 years.

The HC relied on the victim's testimony, which was the foundation, coupled with strong corroborative evidence regarding the conduct of the accused and his family, specifically the payment of money for an abortion and a subsequent marriage (between accused no. 1 and the victim) in a temple.

However, the Bench set aside the conviction of the co-accused and younger brother (Accused no. 2) on the ground of "abnormal discrepancies" in the prosecution's case against him.

Briefly put, it was the prosecution's case that on February 26, 2021, the minor victim lodged a complaint in the police station that around a year back, she had gone to the house of the accused, a neighbour, where she was subjected to forceful sex.

She also claimed that the abuse continued repeatedly as she was put under a threat by the accused to not disclose the repeated incidents

It was further alleged by the victim that the younger brother of the accused blackmailed her, and subsequently, he also assaulted her in a jungle multiple times.

The victim eventually became pregnant, and it was brought to the notice of the father of the appellant No.1, who took the victim to a hospital where the doctor declined to abort the pregnancy.

After a few days, the appellant No.1 married the victim in a temple in the presence of the parents of both sides, but she was not taken to the house of the accused. Later, the father of the accused came to her house and gave Rs.40,000/-to her father and asked to abort the pregnancy.

However, the pregnancy could not be aborted as she was in an advanced stage and after a few months, she gave birth to a son.

Following a trial, the Special Judge (POCSO), North Tripura, convicted both brothers under the aforementioned provisions under the IPC and the POCSO Act and sentenced them to 20 years' RI.

Challenging their conviction, the accused moved the HC, wherein it was primarily argued that the DNA profile of the child mismatched with that of the appellants herein, and thus, the conviction against the appellants is illegal.

On the other hand, the Additional PP, appearing for the respondent-State, argued that the evidence of the victim is cogent enough to hold the accused persons guilty for the offence.

It was also contended that the result of the paternity test is not the subject matter of this case, and the result of the paternity test cannot impact the fate of this case.

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the High Court clarified the jurisprudential weight of DNA evidence in rape trials. The Bench observed that the purpose of a DNA test is to facilitate the prosecution's case.

"...merely because of DNA test has negative result cannot lead to the conclusion that the victim was not raped by the accused. The purpose of DNA test in rape case is to facilitate the prosecution to prove its case against the accused and merely because the DNA test has a negative report, it does not exonerate the accused from the offence. However, it exonerates from the paternity of the child.", the Court held.

Although the DNA report was negative regarding paternity, the Court found strong corroborative evidence against the first appellant, Prasanta Debnath.

The bench noted that in the investigation, it surfaced that after the pregnancy came to light, the father of the accused approached the victim's family and paid Rs. 40,000 to arrange for an abortion, and this fact was corroborated by independent witnesses (PW-12) and the victim's parents.

Analyzing this conduct, the Court observed: "It clearly means that the father of the accused had knowledge that there was a relation between the victim and the accused and it may have resulted in pregnancy of the victim".

The Court also noted that it was undisputed that the age of the victim was less than 17 years, and even the accused side did not challenge it during the cross-examination of the witnesses.

The bench also noted that it was established that the appellant No.1 had initially committed rape on the victim girl with a promise to marry her, and thereafter he put the victim under fear not to disclose the incident to anyone, and thereafter he compelled her to have sex multiple times.

The court also found credible evidence regarding the marriage between the victim and the appellant No.1 and Rs. 40K was given to the victim by the father of the accused.

Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant No. 1 was affirmed.

However, the High Court adopted a different view regarding the second appellant, Pappu Debnath.

Upon a "cautious scrutiny" of the depositions, the Bench noted "abnormal discrepancies" and pointed out that the parents and close relatives of the victim had maintained complete silence regarding Pappu's involvement in their testimonies.

The Court held that while the victim alleged his involvement, the lack of corroboration from her own family members and the inconsistencies in the trial created a shadow of doubt.

"The discrepancies which are found in this case in respect to the appellant No. 2, appeared to be abnormal in nature which is not expected from a normal person", the Bench remarked.