The Delhi High Court has observed that while DNA evidence may conclusively establish paternity and the fact of sexual intercourse, it cannot by itself determine whether the relationship was consensual or nonconsensual. Justice Madhu Jain made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by a prosecutrix against the acquittal of a man accused of repeatedly raping her, administering an intoxicant, committing unnatural sexual acts and extending threats.
“The gravity of the accusation cannot substitute the standard of proof required in a criminal trial,” the Court said, adding that where the evidence permits a reasonable view consistent with innocence, the benefit must go to the accused.
The Court upheld the October 2024 judgment of a Dwarka court acquitting the accused of offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 377, 328, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecutrix had alleged that the accused, known to her family, had repeatedly established physical relations with her against her wishes since 2017 by threatening and inducing her. She also alleged that on one occasion she was administered an intoxicating substance before being sexually assaulted.
She subsequently gave birth to a child in June 2019. A DNA examination established that the accused was the biological father of the child. However, Justice Jain said the DNA report, though significant, only established the fact of sexual intercourse and paternity.
“However, the DNA report by itself does not establish the circumstances in which such intercourse took place, nor does it determine whether the relationship was consensual or non-consensual,” the Court observed.
The real question, the High Court said, was whether the prosecution had proved the absence of consent and established the offence of rape beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court also made significant observations on the evidentiary value of a prosecutrix’s testimony, holding that the statutory presumption regarding absence of consent does not make such testimony immune from judicial scrutiny. While recognising that a prosecutrix’s sole testimony can form the basis of conviction, the Court said such evidence must still inspire confidence and withstand judicial examination.
“The principle that the testimony of the prosecutrix can, in an appropriate case, form the sole basis of conviction, does not dispense with the requirement that such testimony must inspire confidence,” the Court said.
It added that courts are not required to ignore material contradictions and inconsistencies merely because the allegations concern a sexual offence. Importantly, Justice Jain cautioned courts against judging a prosecutrix’s conduct through stereotypical notions of how a victim of sexual assault ought to behave.
