A DNA profiling report is inadmissible when the examining expert is not examined.

The prosecution alleged that the victim, aged 17 years and 10 months, had been in a relationship with the accused for about two years, during which he repeatedly sexually assaulted her, causing pregnancy, and gave her medicine to induce a miscarriage.

After the victim experienced profuse bleeding, her father lodged an FIR; the accused was charged under Sections 64(2)(m) and 89 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

At trial, the victim acknowledged the relationship but denied physical relations, pregnancy by the accused, and the alleged miscarriage; she was declared hostile.

The DNA report was exhibited through the Investigating Officer, but the expert who conducted the profiling was not examined.

The Sessions Court acquitted the accused, and the State appealed.

Whether the prosecution established that the accused committed repeated penetrative sexual assault and that the alleged pregnancy and miscarriage resulted from his conduct.

Whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse or otherwise warranted appellate interference.

Under Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an appellate court may review an acquittal, but interference is justified in exceptional cases involving compelling circumstances or a perverse judgment; where the trial court’s view is reasonable and possible, the acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and should not be displaced routinely.

The Court treated a DNA profiling report as insufficiently proved where the expert who conducted the examination was not examined, relying on Rahul v. State of Delhi, (2023) 1 SCC 83.

Although the victim’s age was undisputed and she was below 18, the prosecution still had to establish the alleged sexual assault and the accused’s involvement through admissible evidence.

The victim did not support the prosecution’s allegations of sexual intercourse, pregnancy by the accused, or an induced miscarriage.

The DNA report, relied on as scientific evidence, had been introduced through the Investigating Officer alone; the expert who performed the test was not examined, so the report could not establish the accused’s involvement in accordance with law.

The Court found no other evidence sufficient to prove the charges, and concluded that the trial court’s assessment was a reasonable and possible view rather than a perverse one.

Accordingly, the stringent standard for appellate interference with an acquittal was not met.

The State’s appeal was dismissed at the admission stage.