Introduction:

The Delhi High Court recently ruled in a significant case where the reliance on a DNA report to prove rape was challenged. The case involved an accused convicted under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the IPC. The trial court had found him guilty of rape based on the fact that the prosecutrix had given birth to a child whose paternity was confirmed through DNA analysis. The accused challenged his conviction, arguing that the relationship was consensual and that the complaint was filed only after the pregnancy was discovered. The High Court, while discharging the accused, observed that a DNA report merely establishes paternity and does not, in itself, prove the absence of consent—a fundamental element required for a rape conviction. Justice Amit Mahajan emphasized that proving sexual relations is not sufficient to establish rape unless non-consent is also demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The prosecution contended that the DNA report was definitive proof of the accused’s involvement and, coupled with the victim’s statements, established that the accused had repeatedly assaulted her. It relied on the prosecutrix’s claim that she was subjected to sexual assault under the pretext of playing board games at the accused’s residence. The prosecution further argued that the accused had threatened the prosecutrix and coerced her into silence, which explained her delay in filing the FIR. On the other hand, the accused contended that the relationship was entirely consensual and that the prosecutrix had initiated legal action only after discovering her pregnancy to avoid social stigma. He maintained that there was no evidence of coercion or force and that the prosecutrix had voluntarily visited his house over a prolonged period. Additionally, the accused argued that there was an unexplained delay in complaining and no medical evidence corroborating the allegations of force or resistance.

Court’s Judgment:

The Delhi High Court, in its ruling, found merit in the accused’s arguments. The court noted that the prosecutrix had admitted to visiting the accused’s residence multiple times and developing affectionate feelings towards him. The court observed that she made no complaints or disclosures to her family regarding any sexual assault until her pregnancy was discovered. Justice Mahajan remarked that the prosecutrix’s delayed complaint and subsequent embellishment of allegations during trial proceedings raised serious doubts about the credibility of her claims. The court emphasized that the absence of immediate reporting, coupled with the prosecutrix’s continued voluntary association with the accused, indicated that the relationship may have been consensual. Furthermore, the court held that the DNA report, while establishing paternity, could not serve as conclusive proof of non-consensual sexual intercourse. It stressed that rape allegations require clear evidence of non-consent and that retrospective reframing of a consensual relationship as assault due to social pressures could not be the basis for conviction. Consequently, the court discharged the accused and set aside his conviction, underscoring that legal proceedings must not be influenced by societal perceptions but should be based on concrete legal principles and evidence.