DNA evidence overrides hostile victim testimony in cases of aggravated sexual assault of minors.

The Appellant, Mohd. Zamil, was convicted for the repeated sexual assault of his minor daughter ("Prosecutrix").

The incident came to light on February 22, 2014, when the Prosecutrix was found to be pregnant.

Though she initially implicated a friend, she later disclosed that her father had repeatedly assaulted and threatened her.

The Trial Court relied on school records (DOB: 15.10.1999) to determine she was a minor, rejecting an Aadhar Card prepared during the trial which listed her DOB as 15.10.1996.

Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) DNA reports confirmed the Appellant was the biological father of the foetus.

On August 10, 2018, the Trial Court sentenced the Appellant to life imprisonment under the POCSO Act and two years of rigorous imprisonment under the IPC.

The Appellant challenged both the conviction and sentence.

The Court applied Section 6 read with Sections 5(l) and 5(n) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, regarding aggravated penetrative sexual assault by a person in a position of trust.

It invoked Section 506(i) of the IPC for criminal intimidation.

The Court relied on Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which establishes a statutory presumption of guilt once foundational facts are proven.

Regarding age determination, the Court followed the hierarchy established in the Juvenile Justice Act, prioritizing school records over Aadhar cards.

The Court further cited Bhanei Prasad alias Raju v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2025) to emphasize that DNA evidence constitutes "unimpeachable scientific proof" in cases of familial sexual abuse.

The Court observed that the DNA report was conclusive, matching the Appellant to the foetus and excluding the previously named suspect.

It held that scientific evidence overrides any inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s testimony caused by family pressure or economic duress.

Regarding the age of the victim, the Court affirmed the Trial Court's reliance on the first-attended school's admission records and MCD birth certificate over a trial-stage Aadhar card, noting that even under the Aadhar card’s date, the victim remained a minor at the time of the offense.

The Court characterized the Appellant’s role as a "shield" who turned predator, ruling that familial betrayal of trust necessitates the severest condemnation.

It dismissed the argument for leniency, stating that the trauma of incestuous violence is lifelong and non-mitigatable through standard socio-economic pleas.

It held that the DNA evidence and credible portions of the prosecutrix’s testimony left no scope for doubt regarding the Appellant's guilt.

The Court directed that while the sentence remains confirmed, the Appellant may rely on mitigating circumstances (age, poverty, and disabled spouse) only at the stage of seeking commutation from the executive under Section 55 IPC or Section 433 CrPC.

Finally, the Court ordered the redaction of all identifying names of the Appellant and the victims from public documents to protect the prosecutrix's privacy.