"DNA Evidence Not Conclusive in Sexual Assault Cases," Says Delhi High Court in Bail Denial

The Delhi High Court has rejected the bail application of Sajjad Alam, who has been accused of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor, under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The court, presided by Justice Subramonium Prasad, highlighted the severity of the charges, the consistency of the victim's testimony, and the potential threat to the victim and his family if the accused were released on bail.

The case originates from an incident reported on June 21, 2020, when the victim, a 9-year-old boy, was allegedly assaulted by the accused, Sajjad Alam, the owner of a hotel where the victim's father worked. The incident occurred when the father and the victim were sleeping on the roof of the hotel but moved indoors due to rain. The father left the victim in a room where the accused was sleeping. Later, the victim informed his father that Alam had assaulted him, leading to the filing of the FIR and subsequent arrest of the accused.

Justice Prasad noted the victim’s consistent statements during the investigation and in court, which were supported by medical evidence. The court emphasized that the victim's account had withstood a rigorous cross-examination, indicating the reliability of his testimony. The court also acknowledged the potential pressure the victim and his family could face if the accused were released, particularly given the accused's position as the hotel owner.

The defense argued that the medical examination did not conclusively support the charge of penetrative sexual assault, citing the absence of semen or blood matching the accused's DNA. However, the court clarified that the lack of such evidence does not negate the possibility of assault, as the definition of penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act does not necessitate the presence of semen or blood for a conviction.

In its judgment, the court relied on precedents set by the Supreme Court regarding the parameters for granting bail. It stressed the seriousness of the charges under the POCSO Act, which carries a minimum sentence of 20 years and can extend to life imprisonment or even death. The court noted that the potential threat of the accused influencing the victim or tampering with evidence was a significant concern, given the circumstances of the case.

The Delhi High Court's decision to deny bail underscores the judiciary's firm stance on cases involving sexual offences against children. The judgment reiterates the importance of victim testimony and medical evidence in such cases and reflects the court's commitment to safeguarding the interests of vulnerable victims. The case will proceed to trial, where the evidence will be scrutinized further.

Date of Decision: September 3, 2024

Sajjad Alam vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.