Delhi High Court Rules DNA Evidence Confirms Sexual Relation but Not Consent
DNA evidence only proves sexual intercourse took place; it doesn’t show if consent was given or not: Delhi HC
Justice Madhu Jain ruled that DNA evidence is significant since it establishes the fact of sexual intercourse between the parties, but it does not provide the circumstances in which the intercourse took place.
“A“She was known to the appellant’s family and, allegedly, she had physical relation with him since 2017 which were continued till the birth of child by use of threats and promises of inducements and on one occasion by administering an intoxicant to her. The appellant cannot, thus, be held guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offences of rape ascribed against him.
The fact that DNA of the appellant established that he was the biological father of child born to the prosecutrix during the course of the relationship does not, of itself, show that such relationship was forcible and non-consensual,” the Delhi High Court said in an order.
The High Court was hearing an appeal filed by a woman against the trial court’s judgement that acquitted a man she had accused of raping her repeatedly over several years.
“It cannot be doubted that the said evidence is undoubtedly significant as it establishes the fact of sexual intercourse between the parties. 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 while returning the finding.
It was alleged that the woman gave birth to a child of the man in 2019. A DNA test was conducted which proved that he was the father. However, the FIR was only registered in March 2021, which was nearly four years after the incident she had first alleged occurred.
The trial court gave him the benefit of doubt due to inconsistencies in her testimony, the delay in reporting the offence and his own evidence that it had been a consensual relationship which her husband knew about.
Justice Jain agreed with the trial court’s reasoning. She additionally ruled that Section 114A of Indian Evidence Act, which shifts the burden onto the accused after the prosecutrix testifies that she did not consent, does not relieve her testimony from being judged and tested by the Court.
“In our view, there are discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix which are fatal to her claim. We also note that even allegations that nude pictures and videos of the prosecutrix were made to circulate by the appellant are also not supported by any evidence,” the High Court added.
Thus, the Bench upheld the trial court order and dismissed the appeal.
Advocates Jitendra Kumar Tiwari and Abhishek Chaudhary appeared for the appellant- woman.
The State was represented by APP Ajay Vikram Singh.
