The Delhi High Court has ruled that a DNA test can establish paternity and prove that sexual intercourse took place, but it cannot determine whether the relationship was consensual or forced. The court observed that DNA evidence by itself cannot establish rape.
Justice Madhu Jain made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by a woman challenging the acquittal of a man accused of repeatedly raping her, administering intoxicating substances, engaging in unnatural sexual acts and threatening her.
The court said the seriousness of the allegations cannot replace the standard of proof required in a criminal trial. If the evidence also supports a reasonable possibility of innocence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The judgment was reported by news agency ANI.
High Court upholds October 2024 acquittal
The High Court upheld a Dwarka court’s October 2024 decision to acquit the accused of charges under Sections 376(2)(n), 377, 328, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code.
The woman had alleged that the accused was known to her family and had been having physical relations with her against her will since 2017. She claimed he repeatedly threatened and coaxed her into sexual relations.
She further alleged that on one occasion, he gave her an intoxicating substance and sexually exploited her. She later gave birth to a child in June 2019.
A DNA test established that the accused was the child’s biological father. However, the High Court said the report could establish paternity and sexual relations, but not the circumstances in which those relations occurred.
DNA cannot establish whether sex was consensual
The court said a DNA report cannot determine whether sexual intercourse was consensual or non-consensual.
The key issue before the court, therefore, was whether the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the woman had not consented to the sexual relations and that the accused had committed rape.
The court also clarified that legal provisions concerning the presumption of absence of consent do not mean that a woman’s testimony is beyond judicial examination.
Woman’s sole testimony can support conviction if reliable
The High Court said a conviction in a sexual-offence case can be based solely on the testimony of the woman, provided her evidence is trustworthy and withstands judicial scrutiny.
The court cautioned that allegations of sexual offences do not allow courts to overlook material contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence.
At the same time, Justice Madhu Jain stressed that a woman’s conduct cannot be assessed through stereotypical assumptions about how a victim of sexual violence is expected to behave.
The court said the conduct of the parties and surrounding circumstances may still be relevant when assessing conflicting versions and determining whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Court points to contradictions in woman’s statements
The High Court noted that the trial court had considered the evidence as a whole and had identified several significant inconsistencies in the woman’s statements.
These included discrepancies concerning:
- The alleged administration of intoxicating substances
- Her state of consciousness during the first alleged incident
- The circumstances surrounding her pregnancy
- Her husband’s doubts about the child’s paternity
- The alleged police call after her husband reportedly saw her with the accused
The woman had also alleged that the accused took her nude photographs and videos and threatened to circulate them. However, the court noted that these claims were not corroborated by electronic evidence.
The alleged photographs, videos and chats were neither produced nor recovered during the forensic examination of the accused’s mobile phone.
‘No reason to falsely implicate’ is not evidence
The woman had argued that she had no reason to falsely accuse the man because doing so could expose her to social stigma.
The High Court rejected this argument as a substitute for evidence, saying that criminal cases must be decided on the material presented before the court rather than assumptions about why someone would or would not make an allegation.
Acquittal cannot be overturned merely because another view is possible
The High Court also reiterated the principles governing appeals against acquittal.
It said an appellate court should not overturn an acquittal merely because another interpretation of the evidence is possible. Interference is justified only when the trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous, patently illegal, based on a misunderstanding of material evidence, or when guilt is the only possible conclusion.
In this case, the High Court found the trial court’s assessment reasonable and supported by the evidence.
The court held that the possibility of another conclusion was not enough to interfere with the acquittal. It also noted that an accused who has been acquitted enjoys a strong presumption of innocence.
Finding no serious error or illegality in the trial court’s judgment, the Delhi High Court dismissed the woman’s appeal and upheld the accused’s acquittal.
