The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction and ten-year sentence of a man found guilty of sexually assaulting his live-in partner’s minor daughter, ruling that scientific DNA evidence establishing paternity takes precedence over the testimony of a victim who turns hostile during the trial.
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant, Mannu, challenging the judgment of the Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), East District, Delhi. The trial court had convicted him under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Background of the Case
The prosecution’s case originated from a complaint filed by the victim (PW1), a minor aged about 14 years, on June 30, 2017. The victim alleged that the appellant, who had been in a live-in relationship with her mother for six years, had sexually assaulted her multiple times at their residence in Kalyan Puri, Delhi, about eight months prior to the registration of the FIR.
The victim stated that the assaults occurred in her mother’s absence and that the appellant threatened her with dire consequences, including holding a knife to her neck. As a result of the repeated sexual assaults, the victim became pregnant. The chargesheet alleged offences under Sections 363, 376, 506 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
The trial court framed charges against the accused on October 23, 2017. On February 8, 2023, the trial court held the appellant guilty and subsequently sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and imposed a fine of Rs. 20,000.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the appellant argued that there was a “grave infirmity” in the prosecution’s case regarding the chain of custody of the samples sent for forensic analysis. The defence pointed out a discrepancy in the testimony of the Assistant Director (Biology), FSL Rohini (PW13). It was submitted that while three sealed parcels were received at the FSL office on August 2, 2017, only two sealed parcels were received on February 23, 2018, under the same FSL number. The appellant contended that this discrepancy indicated “planting or tampering of samples,” rendering the FSL report unreliable.
Conversely, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that although the victim had turned hostile, she had categorically admitted that her blood samples were taken. This fact was corroborated by the Medical Officer (PW15) who collected the samples. The prosecution relied on the decision in Mahipal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020 SCC OnLine Del 2721) to argue that a conviction can be sustained solely on the basis of a DNA report even if material witnesses turn hostile.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
The High Court noted that both the victim (PW1) and her mother (PW2) had turned hostile during the trial. The victim deposed that the accused had not committed any “wrong acts” on her, and the appellant, in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), claimed false implication due to a dispute over the victim’s friendship with a boy.
However, the Court observed that the fact that the victim was a minor and had delivered a child was undisputed. The bench placed heavy reliance on the scientific evidence provided by the DNA report (Ex. PW13/A).
The Court noted:
“Though PW1 and PW2 are hostile to the prosecution case, it is clear from the scientific evidence that the accused was responsible for the pregnancy of PW1. The testimony of PW13 to the effect that the examination of the blood samples showed the accused to be the father of the child born to PW1 has not been discredited in any way.”
Addressing the appellant’s argument regarding sample tampering, the Court found no merit in the claims, noting that there was “practically no cross-examination of PW13” to discredit the findings. The Court held that the appellant had access to the victim due to his live-in relationship with her mother, and the DNA profiling conclusively established him as the biological father.
The Court also addressed a procedural lapse regarding the non-compliance of Section 232 of the CrPC, which mandates a hearing on acquittal if there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence. Citing the judgment in Moidu K. vs. State of Kerala (2009 SCC OnLine Ker 2888), the Court held that such an omission “does not, ipso facto vitiate the proceedings, unless omission to comply the same is shown to have resulted in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused.” The Court observed that the appellant failed to show any such prejudice.
Decision
The High Court concluded that the findings of the trial court suffered from no infirmity. The Court dismissed the appeal, stating:
“In such circumstances, the finding of guilt of the accused by the trial court for the offences punishable under Section 376(2)(f) and 506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act suffers from no infirmity calling for an interference by this Court.”
The conviction and sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment were upheld.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Mannu v. The State (Govt. of NCT) of Delhi
- Case Number: CRL.A. 583/2024 & CRL.M. (BAIL) 1129/2024
- Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha
- Counsel for Appellant: Md. Aslam, Mr. Saroj K., and Mr. Chirayu Sharma, Advocates.
- Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for State with SI Shubhanshu; Mr. Himanshu Anand Gupta (DSLSA), Ms. Mansi Yadav, Mr. Sidharth Barua, Ms. Navneet Kaur, Mr. Shekhar Anand Gupta, and Ms. Shivani Rampal, Advocates.
