Delhi HC Acquits Man Of Rape And Hurt: Complainant Denied Assault, And Bedsheet DNA Alone Could Not Prove Non-Consent

The prosecution alleged that the appellant sexually assaulted the prosecutrix at her home and poured an unknown chemical on her private parts.

The prosecutrix later denied the allegations in court; she had earlier made a statement to police, but no statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded.

Medical examination noted superficial abrasions on her neck but no genital injury, while chemical analysis detected no relevant substance. DNA analysis matched the appellant’s blood sample with material from a bed sheet recovered from the house.

The Trial Court convicted him under Sections 376 and 324 IPC and imposed sentences to run concurrently. He appealed under Section 374 CrPC

The prosecution must prove every essential ingredient of the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt.

A prosecutrix’s testimony, when reliable, may sustain a conviction without corroboration; where she turns hostile and disowns the material allegations, the court must assess whether the remaining admissible evidence independently establishes the offence.

A prior police statement is not substantive evidence of the facts stated in it, although relevant portions of a hostile witness’s testimony may be considered with other admissible evidence.

Proof of sexual contact, including through DNA evidence, does not by itself prove absence of consent.

The absence of injuries is not conclusive, but may be relevant in the circumstances of a case.

The judgment applied Sections 376 and 324 IPC and Section 374 CrPC; it cited no precedent

The prosecutrix categorically denied that the appellant had done anything wrong, and her prior police statement could not itself prove the alleged assault.

The neck abrasions were superficial, and the medical evidence allowed for an alternative cause; they therefore did not independently establish force.

The DNA match could support the presence of the appellant’s biological material on the bed sheet, but did not establish that any sexual contact was non-consensual.

The chemical analysis detected no alleged substance, and the Trial Court’s suggestion that it may have been washed away was speculative.

Considered cumulatively, the evidence did not bridge the gap left by the prosecutrix’s denial or establish either offence beyond reasonable doubt

It set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant, allowed the appeal, cancelled his bail bond, and discharged the surety bond