Court Allows Criminal Appeal
The positive DNA report POCSO conviction issue came before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, which set aside the conviction of Munna Ram in a POCSO case. The Court held that a positive DNA report alone cannot sustain a conviction when the prosecution fails to prove the age of the prosecutrix and the evidence points to a consensual relationship between two adults.
A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh delivered the judgment on June 25, 2026, in Criminal Appeal No. 1920 of 2026, Munna Ram v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others.
Trial Court Had Awarded 20-Year Sentence
The appellant challenged the judgment dated October 14, 2025, passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Singrauli, in Special Case No. 23/2024.
The trial court convicted him under Sections 363, 366, and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Section 5(l)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
It sentenced the appellant to seven years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 366 IPC and twenty years under Section 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act. The court also imposed fines of ₹500 under each provision and directed both sentences to run concurrently.
Appellant Claimed the Relationship Was Consensual
Counsel for the appellant, Shri Ravindra Pratap Singh, argued that the case involved a consensual relationship between two adults.
He referred to the prosecutrix’s testimony, where she stated that she had called the appellant herself and left home after her father assaulted her.
The defence also relied on her statement under Section 164 CrPC. In that statement, she said she travelled to Banaras with the appellant after the incident at home.
According to the defence, she already knew the appellant before leaving with him. She also stated that he had gifted her a ring. Later, both of them performed a marriage ceremony in Banaras and lived together as husband and wife.
The appellant further argued that the prosecution failed to establish the prosecutrix’s age. Therefore, a positive DNA report arising from a consensual relationship could not, by itself, justify a conviction.
State Relied on DNA Report and School Records
Government Advocate Shri Abhishek Singh opposed the appeal and supported the trial court’s judgment.
The prosecution relied on the DNA report, which confirmed biological linkage. It also relied on the prosecutrix’s Class X marksheet, marked as Exhibit P/5C, which recorded her date of birth as December 27, 2007.
Since the incident occurred in April 2024, the State argued that she was around sixteen-and-a-half years old and therefore a minor.
Court Found Doubt About the Prosecutrix’s Age
The High Court closely examined the evidence relating to the prosecutrix’s age.
The prosecutrix stated that she joined Class I at the age of seven. However, her father testified that he admitted her to LKG on July 31, 2014. Neither the prosecution nor the family produced admission records for LKG or Class I.
The Court also compared the testimony of her parents regarding their marriage and her birth.
Her mother stated that the marriage took place twenty years before the incident and that the prosecutrix was born two years later. In contrast, her father stated that the marriage took place nineteen years before the incident and that she was born one year later.
After examining this evidence, the Bench concluded that the prosecutrix appeared to have attained adulthood by the time of the incident.
School Records Did Not Establish Age
The High Court also examined the evidence of the school teacher.
The teacher stated that the prosecutrix joined Class II on July 31, 2014, and that the school recorded her date of birth as December 27, 2007.
However, the teacher admitted that neither the parents nor the prosecutrix had produced records from her earlier schooling.
The Bench found that the Class II admission register alone could not conclusively establish her date of birth.
It also observed that the Class X marksheet was issued in 2023. Normally, a student completes around twelve years of formal schooling before appearing for the Class X examination.
Therefore, the Court found it difficult to reconcile how the prosecutrix could have entered LKG in 2014 and still reached Class X by 2023.
Medical Evidence Supported the Defence
The Court also considered the testimony of Dr. Sarita Shah.
The doctor stated that the prosecutrix had fully developed secondary sexual characteristics. She also found no external or internal injuries during the medical examination.
Additionally, the doctor did not offer any definite opinion regarding violation of the prosecutrix’s privacy.
Positive DNA Report Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction
The Bench examined both the prosecutrix’s statement under Section 164 CrPC and her testimony before the trial court.
After comparing both statements, the judges found that she had willingly accompanied the appellant and appeared to be a consenting adult.
The Court also noted that the prosecution failed to produce the first school admission register or any reliable document proving her age.
Accordingly, the Bench held that the positive DNA report POCSO conviction argument could not stand on its own. Without reliable proof that the prosecutrix was a minor, the DNA report alone could not sustain the conviction.
Conviction Set Aside
After considering the entire record, the High Court held that the trial court had failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective.
Accordingly, it allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence dated October 14, 2025.
Finally, the Court directed the authorities to release the appellant from jail immediately, if his custody was not required in any other case. It also ordered the trial court to receive the records without delay.
