The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted bail to a convict under the POCSO Act and Section 376(3) IPC after finding the prosecution’s case fundamentally undermined by uncorroborated DNA evidence and failure to establish the age of the prosecutrix. This order reiterates that conviction in sexual offences against minors cannot rest on speculative or improperly handled forensic evidence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Bhagwan Chouhan, was convicted by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Indore, in Sessions Trial No. 152/2020 for offences under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(L)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He was sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- on each count, with default stipulations. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with a co-accused, abducted a minor girl and sexually exploited her.
Key Facts
- The incident was alleged to have occurred in 2020.
- The prosecutrix was alleged to be under 14 years of age at the time of the offence.
- The prosecution relied heavily on a DNA report to establish the appellant’s involvement.
- Blood sample for DNA testing was collected five months after the alleged incident.
- The chain of custody for the blood sample was not established; no evidence was adduced to prove it was stored in a sealed and secure manner.
- PW-10, Dr. Anil Bhatia, testified that the sample was not maintained in a sealed condition.
- PW-5, Dr. Ritu Vishwas, stated in the medical report that the hymen of the prosecutrix was intact.
- The prosecution failed to produce the scholar register or any official document to prove the age of the prosecutrix.
- The co-accused was acquitted by the trial court.
- The prosecutrix and her parents did not support the prosecution’s case during trial.
Procedural History
- 2020: Sessions Trial No. 152/2020 initiated.
- 31.12.2024: Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to 20 years RI on each count.
- 2025: Criminal Revision Application No. 523 of 2025 filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
- IA No. 4782/2026: First application for bail and suspension of sentence filed and dismissed as withdrawn.
- 16.04.2026: Second application under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought suspension of the remaining jail sentence and grant of bail pending disposal of the appeal, arguing that the conviction was based on unreliable evidence and that the prosecution had failed to discharge its burden.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether, in a case under the POCSO Act and Section 376(3) IPC, a conviction based solely on a DNA report with an unproven chain of custody, unsupported by medical corroboration and lacking proof of the victim’s age, can justify denial of bail pending appeal.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel for the appellant contended that the conviction was unsustainable because:
- The DNA sample was collected five months after the incident without any proof of preservation in a sealed container.
- The testimony of PW-10, Dr. Anil Bhatia, confirmed the breach in the chain of custody.
- The medical report showed an intact hymen, contradicting the prosecution’s version of penetration.
- The age of the prosecutrix was not established through official records such as the scholar register.
- The prosecutrix and her parents had retracted their support for the prosecution.
- The co-accused had been acquitted, further weakening the case. Reliance was placed on the principle that conviction must rest on credible, corroborated evidence, especially in cases involving serious allegations.
For the Respondent/State
The Government Advocate opposed the bail plea, arguing that the gravity of the offence under POCSO and Section 376(3) IPC warranted continued incarceration. He submitted that the conviction was based on scientific evidence and that the court should not interfere with the trial court’s findings absent manifest error.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous evaluation of the evidentiary record. It noted that while the POCSO Act mandates stringent treatment of offences against children, conviction cannot be based on evidence that is legally defective or uncorroborated.
"The blood sample was taken after five months and the same was not kept in the sealed and safe place."
The Court emphasized that the failure to maintain the chain of custody renders DNA evidence inadmissible under the principles of prima facie reliability. The absence of any documentary proof of the prosecutrix’s age further undermined the foundation of the charges under POCSO, which requires proof of the victim being under 18 years, and more critically under 14 years for the enhanced punishment under Section 6.
The Court also observed that the testimony of the prosecutrix and her parents, who were the primary witnesses, did not support the prosecution’s case. The intact hymen, as recorded in the medical report, stood in direct contradiction to the allegations of penetrative sexual assault.
The Court held that the cumulative effect of these failures created a strong prima facie case for the appeal having merit. It further noted that the co-accused’s acquittal cast serious doubt on the reliability of the prosecution’s narrative.
The Court concluded that the appellant’s continued incarceration pending appeal would amount to undue hardship, especially where the conviction itself appears to rest on a fragile evidentiary foundation.
The Verdict
The appellant succeeded. The Court allowed IA No. 4782/2026 and suspended the remaining jail sentence pending disposal of the appeal. The appellant was ordered to be released on bail upon:
- Depositing the fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- per count, if not already paid;
- Furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount, to be approved by the trial court;
- Appearing before the Registry of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 17.07.2026 and on such other dates as may be fixed by the Registry during the pendency of the appeal.
What This Means For Similar Cases
DNA Evidence Requires Unbroken Chain of Custody
- Practitioners must insist on documentary proof of sample collection, storage, transportation, and testing in all forensic cases.
- Absent a sealed chain, DNA reports are vulnerable to exclusion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and general principles of evidentiary reliability.
Age Proof Is Non-Negotiable in POCSO Cases
- Scholar registers, birth certificates, or school admission records are mandatory to establish age.
- Oral testimony alone, especially from non-expert witnesses, is insufficient to prove age under Section 15 of the POCSO Act.
Bail Not Automatically Denied in Serious Offences
- Even in heinous offences under POCSO and IPC 376(3), bail may be granted pending appeal if the conviction is based on evidence that is legally defective.
- Courts must balance the gravity of the offence against the strength of the evidentiary foundation supporting the conviction.
Prosecution’s Failure to Corroborate Is Fatal
- Where the victim and family withdraw support, and medical evidence contradicts the allegation, the prosecution’s case collapses.
- Courts must scrutinize inconsistencies between testimonial and forensic evidence before upholding convictions.
