In a notable judgment, the Delhi High Court has acquitted a man previously convicted of rape, clarifying that a DNA report confirming paternity does not establish the absence of consent. The man, who had been serving a 10-year sentence, was acquitted by Justice Amit Mahajan, who emphasized the crucial distinction between proof of paternity and proof of non-consensual intercourse.
The court’s decision, dated March 20, came after reviewing the details of the case which involved allegations of multiple instances of rape said to have occurred when the woman visited the man’s house to play Ludo. The complainant, who lived in the same neighborhood as the accused, alleged that she was raped multiple times over the course of these visits, with the last incident reportedly occurring in late 2017. She later discovered she was pregnant and registered an FIR in January 2018.
During the trial, the DNA test confirmed that the accused was the biological father of the child born to the complainant. However, Justice Mahajan pointed out that paternity alone does not imply a lack of consent. “The DNA report merely proves paternity—it does not and cannot, by itself, establish the absence of consent,” he stated.
The court found several aspects of the prosecution’s case to be “highly improbable” and noted significant delays in filing the FIR without adequate explanation, suggesting the possibility that the complaint could have been influenced by societal pressures to reframe a consensual relationship as rape.
The judgment also highlighted inconsistencies in the woman’s testimony and the lack of corroborative medical or forensic evidence to substantiate the claims of non-consensual acts. The court remarked on the woman’s continuous interactions with the accused and her delay in reporting the incidents, which were not convincingly explained during the trial.
“Further, there was no medical evidence to indicate force or resistance, and there was inconsistency in the prosecutrix’s narrative that diminished the credibility of her testimony,” the court observed.
