Quick Read
The Delhi High Court has held that DNA evidence can establish that sexual intercourse took place between an accused and a prosecutrix, but it cannot by itself establish whether the intercourse was consensual or non-consensual. The Court also clarified that DNA evidence does not establish the circumstances in which the sexual relationship occurred. The observation came while the Court upheld the acquittal of a man accused under Sections 328, 376(2)(n), 377, 506 and 509 of the IPC.
Introduction
DNA evidence is an important form of scientific evidence in sexual offence cases. It can establish a biological connection between individuals and can prove facts such as paternity. However, the Delhi High Court has clarified that its evidentiary value has limits. A DNA report establishing that an accused is the biological father of a child does not automatically prove that the sexual relationship was against the woman’s consent.
The Court made the observation in KXXXXX v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., while examining an appeal against an acquittal judgment passed by the Trial Court. The appeal was filed by the prosecutrix under Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Legal Issue
The central issue was whether the Trial Court had wrongly acquitted the accused despite the DNA evidence and the allegations made by the prosecutrix.
The prosecution alleged that the accused, who was known to the family, had sexual relations with the prosecutrix from 2017 onwards against her wishes. The allegations included threats, inducements and administration of an intoxicating substance. The prosecutrix later became pregnant and gave birth to a child in June 2019.
The DNA examination established that the accused was the biological father of the child. The accused also admitted in his Section 313 CrPC statement that he had physical relations with the prosecutrix. However, he claimed that the relationship was consensual and was within the knowledge of her husband.
The legal question therefore went beyond proving that sexual intercourse had taken place. The Court had to consider whether the prosecution had proved the alleged absence of consent, coercion, intoxication and threats beyond reasonable doubt.
Court Ruling
Justice Madhu Jain held that the DNA report was significant because it established the fact of sexual intercourse between the parties. However, the report could not by itself establish the circumstances in which the intercourse occurred.
The Court specifically observed that DNA evidence does not determine whether the relationship was consensual or non-consensual. The Court therefore distinguished between proving sexual intercourse and proving the criminal circumstances surrounding that intercourse.
The Court also considered Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act. The provision creates a statutory presumption regarding absence of consent in specified rape prosecutions when the foundational requirements are satisfied. The Court clarified that the existence of this presumption does not make the testimony of the prosecutrix completely immune from judicial scrutiny. The foundational facts and the evidence available in the case still require examination.
Why Did the Court Uphold the Acquittal?
The High Court found that the Trial Court had examined the evidence cumulatively. It did not reject the prosecutrix’s testimony simply because it came from the prosecutrix. Instead, her testimony was compared with her earlier statements, the evidence of her husband and the other material on record.
The Court noted material inconsistencies concerning the alleged administration of an intoxicating substance. There were also variations regarding the circumstances of the first alleged incident and the state of consciousness of the prosecutrix.
The High Court also noted inconsistencies concerning the pregnancy and the alleged suspicion surrounding the child’s paternity. These circumstances were considered together while assessing whether the prosecution had proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Significance
The judgment highlights the distinction between scientific proof of sexual intercourse and proof of rape. A DNA report can establish a biological relationship and can strongly corroborate the fact that sexual intercourse occurred. It does not, by itself, answer the separate legal question of consent.
The ruling also reiterates that an appeal against acquittal is subject to a heightened standard of interference. Where the Trial Court has adopted a reasonably possible view based on the evidence, an appellate court does not interfere merely because another interpretation is possible.
The Delhi High Court therefore concluded that the Trial Court’s view was reasonably possible on the material before it. Since the prosecution had not established grounds warranting interference with the acquittal, the appeal was dismissed.
The judgment does not dilute the importance of DNA evidence. Instead, it clarifies its specific evidentiary function. DNA can establish biological and sexual linkage, but the question of consent requires assessment of the complete evidence and circumstances of the case.
