Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Govind alias Hemrab s/o Mahadeo Deolkar/Deulkar, was convicted by the learned Designated Judge, POCSO Act and Additional Sessions Judge-2, Nagpur on 08.08.2018 in Special Case Child Protection No.226/2015 for offences under Sections 376(2)(f),(i),(j) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine. The victim was his stepdaughter, a minor studying in 9th standard. The prosecution case was that on 19.01.2015, the victim was offered spiked snacks and sweets by a schoolmate and a boy named Sameer, after which she was dragged into bushes and raped by Sameer and his friends. Subsequently, the victim became pregnant and delivered a child. The appellant was charged with rape based on the victim's statement that he had also raped her. However, DNA analysis of the child's blood sample conclusively excluded the appellant as the biological father. The court found that the prosecution witnesses, including the victim and her mother, gave inconsistent and contradictory testimonies. The medical evidence did not support the allegation of rape by the appellant. The court held that the scientific DNA evidence overrode the oral testimony and created reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The court noted that the appellant had already served about 10 years in custody.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Rape - DNA Evidence - Paternity Exclusion - The appellant was convicted for rape of his minor stepdaughter under Sections 376(2)(f),(i),(j) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act. The victim became pregnant and delivered a child. DNA analysis of the child's blood sample excluded the appellant as the biological father. The court held that the DNA evidence, being scientifically reliable, overrides the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which were inconsistent and lacked corroboration. The conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted. (Paras 1-20) B) Evidence Law - Scientific Evidence - DNA Profiling - Reliability - The court emphasized that scientific evidence, particularly DNA profiling, is a crucial tool for accurate fact-finding. In this case, the DNA report conclusively proved that the appellant was not the father of the victim's child, thereby creating reasonable doubt about his involvement in the rape. The court held that when scientific evidence contradicts oral testimony, the former must prevail. (Paras 1, 20) C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal - Acquittal - Benefit of Doubt - The appellant had been in custody for about 10 years. The court, after analyzing the DNA evidence and the weaknesses in the prosecution case, granted him the benefit of doubt and acquitted him. The court noted that the three young boys (co-accused) were also saved by scientific evidence from wrongful conviction. (Paras 1, 20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant for rape of his stepdaughter under Sections 376(2)(f),(i),(j) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act is sustainable in light of DNA evidence excluding him as the biological father of the child born to the victim.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction dated 08.08.2018 passed by the learned Designated Judge, POCSO Act and Additional Sessions Judge-2, Nagpur in Special Case Child Protection No.226/2015 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- DNA evidence
- scientific investigation
- paternity exclusion
- benefit of doubt
- circumstantial evidence
- testimonial reliability
- POCSO Act
- Section 376 IPC
