DNA evidence proving paternity and intercourse does not, by itself, establish absence of consent.

The prosecutrix, a married woman, alleged that Respondent No. 2, who was known to her family, repeatedly subjected her to sexual intercourse from 2017 onwards by threats, inducements and, on one occasion, by administering an intoxicating substance.

She further alleged unnatural sexual acts, threats involving nude photographs/videos, and intimidation. She became pregnant and gave birth to a child on 20.06.2019.

A DNA examination established that Respondent No. 2 was the biological father of the child, thereby proving sexual intercourse between the parties, but not by itself the circumstances or absence of consent.

FIR No. 138/2021 was registered on 17.03.2021 under Sections 328, 376(2)(n), 377, 506 and 509 IPC.

The Trial Court framed charges under those provisions and, after recording the evidence of the prosecutrix, her husband and the Investigating Officers, acquitted the accused on 07.10.2024.

The prosecutrix preferred the present appeal under Section 419 BNSS against the acquittal.

Whether the Trial Court’s judgment of acquittal suffered from perversity, patent illegality, misreading or non-consideration of material evidence so as to warrant appellate interference?

Whether the evidence, including the prosecutrix’s testimony, DNA report and the statutory presumption under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, established beyond reasonable doubt that the sexual relationship was non-consensual and constituted an offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC?

Whether the prosecution proved the charges under Sections 328, 377, 506 and 509 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

The Court applied the statutory provisions under Sections 328, 376(2)(n), 377, 506 and 509 IPC, relating respectively to administration of an intoxicating or stupefying substance, repeated rape, unnatural offences, criminal intimidation and insult to the modesty of a woman.

Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act was applied on the principle that, once sexual intercourse is proved and the woman states that she did not consent, the Court shall presume absence of consent, although the foundational facts must first be established and the presumption remains subject to rebuttal through legally permissible evidence.

The Court reiterated that the credible and trustworthy sole testimony of a prosecutrix can sustain a conviction, but such testimony must inspire confidence and is not immune from judicial scrutiny.

Relying on State of H.P. v. Sanjay Kumar @ Sunny, (2017) 2 SCC 51, Phool Singh v. State of M.P., (2022) 2 SCC 74, State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384 and State (GNCT of Delhi) v. Vipin @ Lalla, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 78, the Court held that material contradictions may affect reliability.

It further applied the settled appellate principle that an acquittal should not be disturbed where the Trial Court’s view is reasonably possible; interference is justified only for compelling and substantial reasons, patent perversity, manifest illegality, or misreading or omission of material evidence, as reiterated in Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa v. State of Karnataka, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 89.

The Court held that the DNA report conclusively established paternity and sexual intercourse, but did not determine whether the intercourse was consensual or non-consensual.

Although Section 114A was relevant, the prosecutrix’s testimony remained subject to scrutiny.

The Court found material inconsistencies regarding the alleged administration of an intoxicant, the prosecutrix’s state of consciousness during the first incident, the timing and circumstances of the husband’s alleged suspicion about paternity, and the circumstances of the police call.

Her allegations concerning nude photographs, videos and threats were not corroborated by recovered electronic evidence.

The evidence that the parties communicated frequently, that the accused sent her money for a mobile phone, and that she was disturbed when he stopped calling was considered cumulatively with the inconsistencies while assessing the defence plea of a consensual relationship.

The Court emphasized that delay alone could not discredit the prosecution, but the surrounding circumstances could be considered with the other evidence.

It further held that the allegations of oral/anal sexual acts lacked consistent earlier disclosure and corroboration, while the charge under Section 328 IPC was unsupported by recovery or scientific examination of any intoxicating substance.

Consequently, the Trial Court’s assessment was held to be a reasonably possible view and not perverse or manifestly illegal.

It held that the prosecution had not established beyond reasonable doubt the absence of consent or the ingredients of Sections 328, 376(2)(n), 377, 506 and 509 IPC, and that the Trial Court’s acquittal was neither perverse nor legally unsustainable.

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of acquittal dated 07.10.2024 in SC No. 151/2022 arising from FIR No. 138/2021, Police Station Dwarka North, was upheld.

Pending applications were disposed of and a copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Trial Court.