Conviction Can’t Be Based On DNA Report Not Put To Accused During Section 313 CrPC Examination: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man In POCSO Case

"Since the accused-appellant was not confronted with the conclusions of the FSL report regarding the matching of the DNA in the statements under Section 313 CrPC, the same cannot be a ground for conviction. The FSL report cannot be read against the accused and on this count too, the prosecution case is bound to fail," High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, in a significant judgment dated April 29, 2026, has set aside the conviction and 20-year sentence of a man accused of kidnapping and committing unnatural sex with a minor.

A division bench comprising Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. and Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. observed that the prosecution failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the identification of the accused and committed a reversible error by not confronting the accused with incriminating DNA evidence during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The appellant, Mohit Tyagi, was convicted by a Special POCSO Court in Dehradun in January 2020 for offences under Sections 363, 377, and 506 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that in August 2018, the appellant kidnapped a 13-year-old boy on a motorcycle and forcibly established unnatural relations with him near a barrage. The appellant challenged this conviction before the High Court, primarily contesting the reliability of the victim's identification and the legality of the evidence.

The primary questions before the court were whether the victim could have reliably identified the accused given that the incident occurred in the dark, and whether an FSL/DNA report could form the basis of a conviction if the accused was not specifically questioned about its findings during his Section 313 CrPC statement. The court also examined the legality of applying enhanced sentences under Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act retrospectively.

Victim's Identification Unreliable Due To Darkness At Crime Scene

The court noted significant inconsistencies regarding the identification of the accused. The victim (PW-1) admitted during cross-examination that he did not know the accused prior to the incident and that it was dark when the alleged crime occurred. The bench found it implausible that the victim could provide the facial features or the motorcycle number of a stranger under such conditions.

"The victim has categorically stated that it was dark at the time of incident. How the appellant has been named in the FIR? How could he be identified in court by anyone when no one had any opportunity to identify him at the time of alleged incident?" the court observed.

Absence Of Test Identification Parade Fatal To Prosecution Case

The bench emphasized that the prosecution failed to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP). It was revealed through the father of the victim (PW-2) that the police had shown a photograph of the accused to the victim for identification, a fact that was not mentioned in the earlier statements to the Investigating Officer. The court held that such a procedure vitiated the reliability of the identification.

"The explanation that it was possible for the victim to have identified the accused... is wholly unacceptable for the due identification of the accused. In view of the facts and circumstances, the prosecution case is palpably false at the very inception," the bench remarked.

Non-Confrontation Of FSL Report During Section 313 CrPC Statement

The court dealt extensively with the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report which allegedly matched the DNA from the accused's underwear with that of the victim. However, the court found that the conclusions of this report were never presented to the accused for an explanation during his examination under Section 313 CrPC. It is a settled principle of Indian criminal jurisprudence that any incriminating circumstance not put to the accused during this stage cannot be used against him.

"Since the accused-appellant was not confronted with the conclusions of the FSL report, the FSL report could not be relied against the accused. The prosecution case is bound to fail and the conviction of the accused cannot be sustained," the judgment stated.

Doubt Over Integrity Of Biological Samples And Chain Of Custody

The bench also expressed doubt over the recovery of biological samples. The medical report indicated the accused had bathed and changed clothes before the examination, yet semen was allegedly found on his underwear. Furthermore, the accused (DW-1) testified that he was beaten by the police and forced to provide a semen sample in a container, which was later used to implicate him. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove a secure chain of custody for the clothing items.

Sentence Under Section 4(2) POCSO Act Could Not Be Applied Retrospectively

The court highlighted a significant legal error in sentencing. The appellant was sentenced to 20 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, a provision that was inserted into the statute with effect from August 16, 2019. Since the alleged incident occurred on August 15, 2018, the court held that the enhanced penalty could not have been applied retrospectively.

The High Court concluded that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The bench set aside the trial court's judgment and ordered the immediate release of the appellant, provided he was not required in any other case. The court underscored that the lack of proper identification and the procedural lapse regarding the Section 313 CrPC examination rendered the conviction unsustainable.

Date of Decision: 29 April 2026