A DNA mismatch alone cannot justify discharge where other evidence raises a strong prima facie case.

The complainant alleged that the applicant repeatedly subjected her to forcible sexual assault and rape while she was working in or visiting agricultural fields. After developing abdominal pain, she was medically examined and found to be pregnant. She thereafter disclosed the alleged incidents to her family, leading to registration of FIR I-C.R. No. 11197057250978 of 2025 at Vaghodiya Police Station under Section 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”).

Following investigation, a chargesheet was filed and Sessions Case No. 37 of 2025 was instituted before the Additional Sessions Court, Savli.

The applicant filed an application for discharge under Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), contending principally that the DNA report excluded him as the biological father of the foetus, that the FIR was delayed by approximately five months, and that the complainant’s statements contained material contradictions.

The Trial Court rejected the discharge application. The applicant consequently invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS, also seeking quashing of the charge framed in the Sessions Case.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the applicant’s discharge application despite the DNA report allegedly excluding him as the biological father of the foetus, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the alleged inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements?

2. Whether the materials collected during investigation disclosed a prima facie case or raised a strong suspicion sufficient to proceed against the applicant for the alleged offence under Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS?

3. Whether the High Court should exercise revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the order rejecting discharge and the subsequent framing of charge?

The Court applied Sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS governing criminal revision, and Section 250 of the BNSS concerning discharge in a Sessions case.

The alleged substantive offence was under Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS.

At the discharge or charge-framing stage, the Court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or assess the reliability and evidentiary value of the prosecution material in detail; it must only determine whether the material discloses a prima facie case or raises a strong suspicion against the accused.

Relying on Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2010) 9 SCC 368, and K. Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2024 SC 4074, the Court held that revisional interference is limited and warranted only in cases of patent illegality, perversity, non-compliance with law, absence of evidence, or arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion.

The High Court found that the complainant had specifically named the applicant and alleged that he had committed rape upon her on several occasions.

Her allegations were supported, at the prima facie stage, by statements of family members to whom she had disclosed the incident, the statement of the applicant’s brother regarding the applicant’s sexual relationship with the complainant, and the medical material relating to both parties.

Although the DNA report did not match the applicant with the foetus, the Court held that the prosecution case involved allegations of repeated sexual assaults and could not be rejected solely on the basis of the DNA result at the preliminary stage.

The applicant’s arguments concerning delay, contradictions, and the reliability of the scientific evidence involved appreciation of evidence and possible defences, which were matters for trial rather than discharge.

Since the Trial Court had considered the relevant material and recorded cogent reasons, its order did not suffer from jurisdictional error, perversity, illegality, or material irregularity warranting revisional interference.

It therefore declined to interfere with the Trial Court’s rejection of the discharge application or with the proceedings in the Sessions Case.

The Criminal Revision Application was dismissed, the order of the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara at Savli, below Exhibit 7 was confirmed, and the Rule was discharged.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the revision proceedings and would not influence the Trial Court during the trial on merits.