Madras High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Relying On Child's DNA Report Despite Survivor Turning Hostile; Modifies Sentence To 20 Yrs

The Madras High Court has upheld the conviction of a man under POCSO Act for sexually assaulting a minor girl ultimately leading to pregnancy and wherein the trial court had relied on the child's DNA report to substantiate offence of penetrative sexual assault. The appellant claimed that neither the girl nor her parents supported the prosecution's case and the trial court had convicted the appellant only based on the DNA report of the child born to the girl. The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice KK Ramakrishnan observed that the trial court was right in relying upon the positive DNA report to conclude that the child was born to the victim through the accused. The court noted that the DNA test laid the foundational facts of the case, which was corroborated with the statement of the victim to the Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC. “The trial court was perfectly right in relying upon the DNA report to come to the conclusion that the child was born to the appellant and the victim girl and that clearly laid the foundational fact to substantiate the charge of penetrative sexual assault against the victim girl. It was corroborated by the 164 statement that was recorded by the victim girl which was marked as Exhibit P1,” the court said. The court was dealing with an appeal filed by the man against the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the Fast Track Mahila Court for offences under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 of the IPC. As per the prosecution, the appellant, who was 40 years old at the time of the occurrence, had called the victim, who was 13 at the time of the occurrence, to the house of another man and committed penetrative sexual assault on her. He also threatened the victim girl not to disclose the occurrence to anyone. When the offence came to light, the victim's mother gave a complaint based on which the FIR was registered. After trial, the court concluded that the prosecution had laid the foundational facts and the legal presumption under the POCSO Act had not been rebutted. The trial court thus sentenced the accused to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs 1000. The appellant argued that neither the victim nor her parents had supported the prosecution case and the trial court had based the conviction solely on the DNA report. It was argued that there were no material to show that there was proper chain of custody and whether the samples were properly taken. The appellant also argued that the relevant documents relating to the DNA test came to surface only after filing of the final report. The State, on the other hand, argued that the investigation officer clearly explained the manner in which the sample was taken and sent for DNA test and the investigating officer had not been confronted during cross-examination. It was also submitted that all the documents were furnished to the accused and only after that he was cross examined. The court noted that though the victim and her parents had turned hostile, the victim girl had admitted that the signature found in the 164 statement and did not state that the statement was recorded under any threat or coercion. The court thus noted that the statement under Section 164 could be used for corroborating the version of the prosecution. The court also noted that the accused had sufficient opportunity to assail the DNA report at the time of trial and at the stage of appeal, he could not question the manner in which the samples were collected, documents were furnished, etc. The court concluded that the DNA report was properly prepared and marked in the court and the same was explained by the Deputy Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory. The court thus found that the grounds raised by the appellant did not carry any merit. Thus, the court upheld the conviction. However, considering that the victim and her parents had turned hostile, the court was inclined to reduce the sentence of life imprisonment to one of rigorous imprisonment for 20 years. Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Mayilvahana Rajendran Counsel for Respondent: Mr. D. Venkatesh Counsel for the State (Crl. side) Case Title: Murugan v The State Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 242 Case No: Crl. A(MD)No.1034 of 2023Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Madras High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Relying On Child's DNA Report Despite Survivor Turning Hostile; Modifies Sentence To 20 Yrs

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

Madras High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Relying On Child's DNA Report Despite Survivor Turning Hostile; Modifies Sentence To 20 Yrs

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers