Negative DNA Report Cannot Overpower Credible Testimony of a Minor Victim in POCSO Convictions

The appellant was convicted by the Special Court (POCSO), Durg, for the sexual assault of a minor girl on the pretext of marriage on 30.11.2021 and 01.12.2021.

The victim’s pregnancy was discovered in July 2022, leading to a written complaint by her mother.

The prosecution relied on a birth certificate [Ex.P-12] and school records [Ex.P-17] to establish the victim's minority.

The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of an inordinate delay in FIR, a negative DNA report indicating he was not the biological father, and discrepancies regarding the victim's age registration under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.

The Court applied Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC.

It relied on the evidentiary hierarchy for age determination established in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, giving primacy to statutory documents over medical opinions.

Regarding DNA evidence, the Court applied the principle from Sunil v. State of Madhya Pradesh, holding that DNA is corroborative for paternity and does not override credible ocular testimony regarding the act of sexual assault.

It further noted the statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, which shift the burden of proof to the accused once foundational facts are established.

The Court found that the victim's date of birth (15.06.2005) was duly proved by the birth certificate and school records, placing her age at 16 years and 5 months during the incident.

It rejected the appellant's technical objection regarding delayed registration under Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, noting the certificate was created years before the crime, ruling out fabrication.

The Court analyzed the victim's testimony (PW-1), finding it "natural, consistent, and free from material embellishment".

Critically, the Court held that the negative DNA report (Ex.P-42) only pertains to paternity and does not demolish the ocular evidence of sexual assault, especially since the victim had received a blood transfusion prior to sampling.

The Court concluded the appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumptions of guilt under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act.

The court affirmed the conviction and the sentence of 20 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's judgment was upheld in its entirety.