DNA Profiling Not 100% Accurate, Can't Be Sole Basis For POCSO Conviction In Absence Of Corroborative Evidence: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has said that DNA reports cannot be solely relied on to convict the accused who is charged for offences punishable under provisions of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). A division bench of Justice R Nataraj and Justice Rajesh Rai K held thus while dismissing an appeal filed by prosecution challenging a trial court order dated 27-08-2021, acquitting the accused Nagesh who was charged for offences punishable under 376(2) of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO. The court said, “Except the DNA report, absolutely no other corroborative piece of evidence is available on record to connect the accused with the alleged offence. The victim herself firmly stated that the accused did not have any sexual intercourse with her. She is not aware who the father of her child is. Even her parents and relatives also deposed similarly. In such circumstances, the DNA report cannot be solely relied on to convict the accused.” It further noted,“National Forensic Science University of India's report discloses that while STR test is a highly reliable method for DNA identification, no forensic test is 100% certain. Further, even with the meticulous testing and analysis, it is impossible to achieve 100% certainty in Forensic Science. The field relies on statistical probabilities and rigorous quality control to provide the best possible evidence. Hence, a particular result depends on the quality control and quality procedure in the laboratory.” As per prosecution the accused had on the false promise of marriage sexually assaulted the victim, who was 17 years old and due to the same, the victim became pregnant. Thereafter, the accused started to avoid her. Thus left with no other option she had lodged a complaint before the Siddapura Police, Karwar on 29.01.2016 against the accused. During the trial court the prosecution examined 22 witnesses and after assessing the oral and documentary evidence the Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against him. In appeal the prosecution argued that though the victim and her parents turned hostile to the prosecution case, it is established in their evidence that the victim was aged about 17 years at the time of incident and gave birth to a child. Further, the DNA report established that the accused is the biological father of the child. In such circumstances, the prosecution has proved the charges leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused contended that the victim has stated in her evidence that the accused has not committed sexual intercourse on her. In such circumstances the DNA report cannot solely be relied on to prove the charges. The trial Court rightly appreciated this aspect and passed the impugned judgment which does not call for any interference. Findings: The bench noted that PW.12-victim, her grandmother, father and relatives have unequivocally deposed that the accused did not commit any sexual act on the victim. In such circumstances, the oral testimony of the victim and her relatives goes contrary to the medical evidence. It said, “No doubt, evidentiary value can be attached to the DNA report issued by the expert as per Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, if the same does not corroborate the testimony of the victim, in such circumstances, the Court has to test the veracity of the report based on facts and evidence of the case on hand.” Dismissing the appeal the court said, “This is an appeal against the judgment of acquittal. It is a settled position of law by this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court that in an acquittal judgment, if the Trial Court has taken a plausible view, then the Appellate Court shall not casually interfere with such judgment of acquittal. In that view of the matter, since the trial Court has taken a plausible view in the instant case, interference with the impugned judgment is not warranted.” Appearance: Additional SPP A.M Gundawade for Appellant. Advocates Jagadish Patil, M C Hukkeri for PW12 AND PW18. Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 247 Case Title: State of Karnataka AND Nagesh Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100570 OF 2022 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

DNA Profiling Not 100% Accurate, Can't Be Sole Basis For POCSO Conviction In Absence Of Corroborative Evidence: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

Tags