Section 389 CrPC | Unexplained FIR Delay & Unproven DNA Evidence Void Rape Conviction : MP HC Suspends Sentence

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has underscored the critical importance of procedural compliance in forensic evidence while suspending a 10-year sentence awarded under Section 376(1) of the IPC. The judgment highlights how unexplained delays in lodging FIRs and gaps in proving DNA reports can create reasonable doubt, warranting suspension of sentence pending appeal.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The appellant, Sonu Ojha, was convicted under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for raping his cousin on the roof of his house. The conviction was based on the oral testimony of the prosecutrix and a DNA report (Exh. P-24) that matched the appellant’s DNA with samples recovered from the prosecutrix’s undergarments, vaginal swab, and vaginal slide. The appellant was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000 by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (POCSO), Guna, in Special Case No. 125/2020 on 10.01.2024.

Key Facts

• The incident occurred on 21.03.2020, but the FIR was lodged after a delay of one month and seven days.
• The prosecutrix attributed the delay to threats from the appellant.
• The Medical Legal Certificate (MLC) report (Exh. P-2) confirmed the collection of vaginal swab, vaginal slide, and undergarments on 27.04.2020.
• The DNA report (Exh. P-24) matched the appellant’s DNA with the samples recovered from the prosecutrix.
• The appellant’s blood sample collection was not proved in court.
• The author of the DNA report was never examined, leaving gaps in the chain of custody and proof of the report.

Procedural History

• 10.01.2024: Conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court.
• 09.10.2025: First application for suspension of sentence dismissed on merit.
• I.A. No. 4307/2026: Second application filed under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. / Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) seeking suspension of sentence and bail.
• 06.05.2026: Present judgment passed by the High Court.

Relief Sought

The appellant sought suspension of the jail sentence pending appeal, arguing that:

• The DNA report was not proved by its author.
• The collection of the appellant’s blood sample was not established.
• The delay in lodging the FIR and collecting evidence rendered the DNA report suspicious.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether procedural lapses in the collection, preservation, and proof of DNA evidence, coupled with an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, could create reasonable doubt sufficient to suspend the sentence pending appeal.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant

• The DNA report (Exh. P-24) was heavily relied upon by the trial court but was never proved by its author.
• The collection of the appellant’s blood sample was not established, casting doubt on the authenticity of the DNA evidence.
• The delay of one month and seven days in lodging the FIR and collecting samples raised suspicions about the preservation of DNA markers.
• The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kattavellai @ Devakar vs. State of Tamilnadu (2025 SCC Online SC 143), where gaps in DNA collection and proof vitiated the evidence.

For the Respondent/State

• The State opposed the application, arguing that the DNA report and oral testimony of the prosecutrix were sufficient to uphold the conviction.
• The delay in lodging the FIR was explained by the prosecutrix’s fear of threats from the appellant.

The Court's Analysis

The High Court meticulously examined the procedural and evidentiary gaps in the case:

1. Delay in FIR and Evidence Collection: The Court noted that the FIR was lodged one month and seven days after the incident, and the vaginal swab and slide were collected on 27.04.2020. The Court observed:

   "It cannot be successfully shown that in such a long gap of one month and seven days, the prosecutrix had not taken any bath nor had cleaned her private part. Without explaining this eventuality, it becomes highly suspicious how the DNA markers, left on her body on account of incident of rape committed on 21/03/2020, were still intact and were safely and successfully recovered on 27/04/2020."

   The unexplained delay raised prima facie suspicion about the integrity of the DNA evidence.

2. Procedural Lapses in DNA Evidence: The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kattavellai @ Devakar vs. State of Tamilnadu, where gaps in DNA collection, storage, and proof rendered the evidence unreliable. In this case:

   • The author of the DNA report was never examined, leaving the report unproved.
   • The Medical Officer who collected the appellant’s blood sample was not brought to the witness box.
   • The MLC report (Exh. P-2) was proved only by Doctor Sonam Dhakad (PW/8), who did not testify about the collection of the appellant’s blood sample.

   The Court held that these procedural lapses created serious doubt about the reliability of the DNA evidence.

3. Burden of Proof: The Court emphasized that forensic evidence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and any gaps in the chain of custody or proof can vitiate the entire evidence. The failure to examine the author of the DNA report and the unexplained delay were sufficient to raise reasonable doubt about the conviction.

The Verdict

The High Court allowed the application for suspension of sentence pending appeal. The appellant was directed to:

• Deposit the fine amount (if not already deposited).
• Furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety in the like amount.
• Remain on bail during the pendency of the appeal, subject to securing his presence before the trial court on 02.07.2026 and other dates as fixed.

The Court refrained from commenting on the merits of the case but held that the procedural lapses and delay warranted suspension of the sentence.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Procedural Compliance in Forensic Evidence Is Non-Negotiable

This judgment reinforces that DNA evidence must be collected, preserved, and proved with strict adherence to procedural norms. Practitioners must ensure:

• Examination of the author of the DNA report to prove its authenticity.
• Proof of collection of all samples, including the accused’s blood sample.
• Documentation of the chain of custody to avoid gaps that can vitiate the evidence.

Failure to comply with these norms can create reasonable doubt, even in cases where the DNA report appears damning.

Delay in Lodging FIR Can Be Fatal to Prosecution

• Unexplained delays in lodging FIRs can raise suspicions about the preservation of forensic evidence, particularly in cases involving biological samples.
• Courts may view such delays with skepticism, especially when the integrity of the evidence is critical to the conviction.
• Prosecutors must explain delays convincingly to avoid reasonable doubt.

Suspension of Sentence Pending Appeal: A Higher Threshold

• The Court suspended the sentence not on the merits of the case but due to procedural lapses and evidentiary gaps.
• This sets a precedent that even in serious offences like rape, courts may suspend sentences if the evidence is vitiated by procedural non-compliance.
• Practitioners must scrutinize forensic evidence for gaps and raise these issues at the earliest to seek suspension of sentence.

Implications for Trial Courts

• Trial courts must ensure rigorous proof of forensic evidence, including examination of all relevant witnesses.
• DNA reports cannot be relied upon in isolation; the chain of custody and proof of collection must be established beyond doubt.
• Delays in evidence collection must be adequately explained to avoid reasonable doubt.