Section 29 POCSO Act | DNA Evidence Alone Insufficient for Conviction Without Corroboration: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a State appeal against the acquittal of an accused in a POCSO case, holding that DNA evidence alone cannot form the sole basis for conviction when material witnesses turn hostile and doubts exist regarding the integrity of forensic samples. The judgment underscores the need for corroborative evidence alongside scientific proof in criminal trials.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The case involves allegations of repeated sexual assault by the accused, Ganesh Durga Ager, on a minor victim aged 14 years and 6 months. The prosecution alleged that the accused committed sexual assault on the victim between March 2018 and March 2020, resulting in her pregnancy. The accused allegedly threatened the victim to prevent disclosure. The offences were registered under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

Key Facts

• The victim was a minor aged 14 years and 6 months at the time of the alleged offences.
• The accused allegedly committed sexual assault on multiple occasions between March 2018 and March 2020.
• The victim became pregnant as a result of the assault, with the pregnancy detected at 22 weeks.
• The accused threatened the victim to prevent her from disclosing the incidents.
• The prosecution relied on medical evidence, including a medical certificate (Ex.P-12) and a DNA report (Ex.P-32), which established the accused as the biological father of the victim’s child.

Procedural History

• 30.03.2020: The victim’s pregnancy was detected, leading to the registration of Crime No. 97/2020 at Ankola Police Station.
• 25.06.2020: The victim was medically examined, and a certificate (Ex.P-12) was issued recording her disclosure of sexual assault.
• 13.01.2021: The Investigating Officer submitted a requisition for DNA examination.
• 08.02.2021: Blood samples of the accused, victim, and child were collected before a Magistrate.
• 09.02.2021: The samples were received at the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Bengaluru.
• Special Case No. 103/2020: The trial commenced before the Special Court for POCSO cases at Karwar.
• 30.08.2021: The Trial Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Criminal Appeal No. 100548/2022: The State filed an appeal against the acquittal before the Karnataka High Court.

Relief Sought

The State sought:

• Leave to appeal against the acquittal order dated 30.08.2021.
• Setting aside of the acquittal and conviction of the accused under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), and 506 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
• Imposition of appropriate sentence on the accused.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the High Court was whether DNA evidence alone can form the sole basis for convicting an accused when all material witnesses, including the victim, turn hostile and doubts exist regarding the integrity of the forensic samples.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant/State

• The Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused despite material evidence, including the medical certificate (Ex.P-12) and DNA report (Ex.P-32), which established the accused as the biological father of the victim’s child.
• The DNA report (Ex.P-32) was conclusive scientific evidence, and the Trial Court failed to appreciate its probative value.
• The prosecution relied on school certificates (Ex.P-16 and Ex.P-18) and birth certificate (Ex.P-33) to prove the victim’s age, which the Trial Court ignored.
• The Trial Court failed to draw statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, which mandate a presumption of guilt against the accused unless rebutted.
• The State cited precedents such as Ravi Shankar @ Baba Vishwakarma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and State through Police Station, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi v. Sanjeev Nanda, which emphasize that courts must not allow witnesses to subvert justice by turning hostile.

For the Respondent/Accused

• The DNA report cannot be treated as conclusive evidence due to lapses in the collection, preservation, and forwarding of blood samples.
• The Investigating Officer failed to establish that the samples were continuously preserved in a cold-storage facility during transit, raising doubts about tampering.
• All material witnesses, including the victim, turned hostile, and the prosecution case lacked corroborative evidence.
• Reliance was placed on precedents such as Nagappa v. State of Karnataka and State of Gujarat v. Jayantibhai Somabhai Khant, which held that DNA evidence alone is insufficient for conviction without supporting testimony.

The Court's Analysis

The High Court examined the evidentiary value of DNA evidence in light of the peculiar facts of the case. The Court noted:

"Though scientific evidence is undoubtedly relevant and carries significant evidentiary value, the defence has pointed out certain discrepancies regarding the collection, preservation, and forwarding of the blood samples."

The Court observed that PW-20, the Assistant Director of the DNA Section at FSL Bengaluru, deposed that the samples were received in a sealed condition and transported in a temperature-controlled thermocol box. However, PW-20 admitted during cross-examination that there was a two-month gap before the DNA examination was conducted, though she clarified that proper storage would prevent deterioration.

The Court further noted that PW-23, the Investigating Officer, deposed that the samples were collected before a Magistrate on 08.02.2021 and forwarded to the FSL on the same day, where they were received on 09.02.2021. However, the prosecution failed to adduce detailed evidence regarding continuous cold-storage preservation during transit.

The Court relied on precedents to underscore the limitations of DNA evidence:

"In Nagappa v. State of Karnataka, the Court observed that it would be unsafe to base a conviction solely upon DNA evidence in the absence of supporting evidence. Similarly, in State of Gujarat v. Jayantibhai Somabhai Khant, the Court held that a positive DNA match may not by itself be sufficient to conclusively establish guilt, particularly when all material witnesses have turned hostile."

The Court emphasized that while DNA evidence is scientifically reliable, its probative value is not absolute in the absence of corroborative evidence. The Court held:

"Having regard to the fact that the material witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, and considering the doubts raised with respect to the handling of the samples, this Court is of the opinion that the DNA report, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot by itself form the sole basis for recording a conviction."

The Court also addressed the statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, which place the burden on the accused to rebut the presumption of guilt. However, the Court noted that the Trial Court failed to apply these provisions, treating the case as an ordinary criminal trial rather than one governed by the special statutory scheme of the POCSO Act.

The Verdict

The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the acquittal of the accused. The Court held:

• The judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.08.2021 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, in Special Case No. 103/2020 is confirmed.
• The accused stands acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n), and 506 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
• The Registry shall transmit the Trial Court records forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.
• The amicus curiae, Sri J.S. Shetty and Smt. Anuradha R. Deshpande, are awarded an honorarium of Rs. 5,000 each by the High Court Legal Services Authority.

What This Means For Similar Cases

DNA Evidence Requires Corroboration

• Scientific evidence alone is insufficient: Courts must ensure that DNA evidence is supported by corroborative testimony, especially when material witnesses turn hostile.
• Sample integrity is critical: Prosecution must establish uninterrupted preservation of forensic samples, including details of storage and transit conditions.

Statutory Presumptions Under POCSO Act Must Be Applied

• Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act create mandatory presumptions of guilt against the accused, shifting the burden of proof to the defence.
• Trial Courts must apply these provisions: Failure to draw statutory presumptions can lead to erroneous acquittals, as seen in this case.

Hostile Witnesses Do Not Automatically Defeat Prosecution

• Courts cannot be mute spectators: Even if witnesses turn hostile, courts must examine other evidence to arrive at the truth.

• Precedents emphasize judicial duty: Courts must balance scientific evidence with oral testimony and ensure that justice is not subverted by witness intimidation or inducement.

• Practitioners must argue for the application of statutory presumptions under the POCSO Act, even in the absence of witness support.

• Documentary evidence, such as medical certificates and DNA reports, must be properly proved to avoid rejection on technical grounds.

• Investigating agencies must ensure meticulous handling of forensic samples to prevent doubts about tampering or degradation.