DNA evidence establishing paternity overcomes witness hostility to sustain conviction for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

The Appellant was convicted by the Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni, for committing penetrative sexual assault on a 13-year-old victim on multiple occasions in 2020, resulting in her pregnancy

During the trial, the victim and her parents (PW1–PW3) turned hostile and denied the occurrence

However, a DNA test conducted after the filing of the final report confirmed the Appellant as the biological father of the child born to the victim

The Appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of procedural lapses in DNA sample collection, non-furnishing of documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and the hostility of material witnesses

1. Whether a conviction can be sustained solely based on DNA evidence and a Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement when the victim and witnesses have turned hostile

2. Whether the procedural delay and manner of collecting DNA samples after the filing of the police report vitiate the evidence

3. Whether the charge under Section 5(l) of the POCSO Act is sustainable in the absence of specific evidence regarding "repeated" assault

The Court applied Section 5 (Aggravated penetrative sexual assault) and Section 6 (Punishment) of the POCSO Act, 2012, alongside Section 506 IPC regarding criminal intimidation

The court utilized the principle that a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can be used for corroboration if the witness admits the signature

It also relied on the evidentiary value of expert DNA reports and the procedural requirements of Section 207 Cr.P.C. regarding the furnishing of documents to the accused

The Court held that while the victim turned hostile, her admission of the signature on the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement allowed it to be used for corroboration

The DNA report (Exhibits P9, P10, etc.) provided "clinching evidence" of paternity, establishing the foundational fact of sexual penetration

The Court rejected the defense of procedural lapses in the DNA test, noting that the samples were collected via judicial order, the chain of custody was intact (sent to FSL within six days), and the Deputy Director of the FSL (PW13) was cross-examined by the defense, proving no prejudice was caused

Distinguishing the precedent Karandeep Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand, the Court found no evidence of sample tampering or haste in this trial

Finally, the Court noted that since PW3 was hostile, "repeated" assault under Section 5(l) could not be proven; however, the act was covered under Section 5(j)(ii) as it resulted in pregnancy

The High Court partly allowed the appeal. It set aside the conviction under Section 506 IPC due to witness hostility. It altered the conviction from Section 5(l) to Section 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act. The sentence of life imprisonment was modified to rigorous imprisonment for a term of 20 years.