The DNA Evidence and Consent ruling clarifies that DNA evidence can prove sexual intercourse but cannot alone prove whether the act lacked consent. The Delhi High Court made this observation while upholding an accused man’s acquittal in a rape case.
Justice Madhu Jain heard the appeal against the trial court’s decision. The accused faced charges under Sections 376(2)(n) and 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Court held that a DNA report can establish biological paternity. However, the report does not explain the circumstances surrounding the sexual relationship.
Therefore, DNA evidence cannot independently establish non-consensual intercourse.
Allegations Against the Accused
The prosecution case began with allegations made by the prosecutrix. She claimed that a family acquaintance had subjected her to non-consensual sexual relations from 2017 onwards.
She alleged that the accused used threats, coercion, and inducements. She also alleged that he used an intoxicating substance during the initial incident.
Police later filed a chargesheet against the accused.
The charges included Section 328 for administering an intoxicating substance. They also included Section 376(2)(n) for repeated rape.
The prosecution also invoked Section 377 for unnatural offences. Other charges included criminal intimidation under Section 506 and Section 509 of the IPC.
The trial court examined the evidence and acquitted the accused in October 2024.
The prosecutrix then challenged the acquittal before the Delhi High Court.
DNA Test Confirms Biological Paternity
During the investigation, forensic experts examined DNA samples from the prosecutrix, the accused, and her child.
The DNA analysis confirmed that the accused was the biological father of the child.
The accused also admitted during his Section 313 CrPC statement that he had a physical relationship with the prosecutrix.
However, he maintained that the relationship was consensual. He also claimed that her husband knew about the relationship.
The High Court examined the prosecution evidence alongside these claims.
Court Finds Contradictions in Testimony
The High Court noted several contradictions in the prosecutrix’s earlier statements.
The trial court had compared her testimony with those previous statements. It found significant inconsistencies in her version of events.
The Court also noted improvements in her account that lacked independent support.
The contradictions particularly affected her allegation about the first incident. She had claimed that the accused used a stupefying substance to remove her ability to consent.
The High Court found that the trial court had properly assessed these inconsistencies.
DNA Cannot Determine Consent
Justice Madhu Jain emphasized the limits of forensic evidence.
A DNA report can establish a biological connection. It can also confirm that sexual contact occurred.
However, DNA evidence cannot reveal whether the parties consented to the sexual act.
The DNA Evidence and Consent issue therefore requires courts to examine more than forensic results. Courts must consider the complete evidence and surrounding circumstances when determining consent.
High Court Upholds Acquittal
The High Court also considered the legal standard for appeals against acquittal.
The Court noted that judges should not apply stereotypes when assessing a survivor’s conduct. At the same time, courts must examine relevant surrounding circumstances when the evidence contains conflicting versions.
Justice Madhu Jain found that the trial court had assessed the evidence as a whole.
The trial court’s conclusion represented a plausible view of the evidence. The High Court therefore found no sufficient reason to interfere with the acquittal.
The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the accused’s acquittal.
