The Case Ofcharges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad acquitted the accused, Nivrutti Nagorao Hange, who was earlier convicted for sexual assault. The court overturned the lower court’s judgment primarily due to lapses in handling forensic evidence, particularly the failure to establish a chain of custody for DNA samples and the lack of clarity on the preservation of the fetus. The prosecution's reliance on DNA evidence, without ensuring its integrity, led to the acquittal.

The judgment focused on the failure of the prosecution to provide a reliable chain of custody for crucial evidence, which resulted in the court rejecting the DNA reports. Additionally, there were contradictions in the medical and scientific evidence, particularly discrepancies in DNA results and the gender of the fetus. This ultimately led to the acquittal of the accused.

Introduction:

• Appellant: Nivrutti Nagorao Hange (Convicted under the POCSO Act and IPC).
• Case: Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC challenging the conviction by Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Special [POCSO] Case No. 43/2016.

Prosecution's Case:

• The victim, a minor, was living with her sister and the accused (her brother-in-law) for educational purposes.
• The accused was alleged to have repeatedly sexually assaulted her, leading to her pregnancy.
• Upon discovery, an FIR was filed, and the case proceeded under the POCSO Act and relevant sections of the IPC.

Key Evidence:

• DNA reports indicated that the accused and the victim were the biological parents of the fetus.
• The medical evidence corroborated the pregnancy and subsequent abortion.

Defense Arguments:

• The defense argued that there was ambiguity in the date of birth of the victim.
• The chain of custody for DNA evidence was not properly maintained.
• The DNA report had discrepancies, particularly in relation to the handling and timing of the analysis.

Court’s Findings:

• Age of Victim: Proven through school records to be a minor at the time of the offense.
• Failure of DNA Integrity: The court emphasized that the prosecution did not maintain a proper chain of custody for the DNA samples.
• Discrepancies in Evidence: Differences in the medical report on the sex of the fetus and DNA results raised further doubts.

Legal Reasoning (Ratio Decidendi):

• The reliability of DNA evidence is crucial for conviction, but in this case, the prosecution failed to establish its proper handling, preservation, and analysis. This created reasonable doubt about its accuracy.

• Absence of substantive corroborative evidence and reliance solely on flawed DNA evidence weakened the prosecution's case.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• POCSO Act: Sections 3(a), 4, 5(j)(ii), 5(l), 5(n), 5(p), 6.
• IPC: Sections 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n).
• Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): Section 235 for conviction and sentencing, Section 374(2) for appeal.
• Indian Evidence Act: Section 8 regarding the relevance of the accused's conduct.

Subjects:

#POCSOAct #DNALaw #ChainOfCustody #ForensicEvidence #Acquittal #SexualOffenses #IndianLaw