-
by Deepak Kumar
15 March 2026 4:04 AM
"An Acquittal Creates A Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of The Accused" — In a significant ruling reaffirming the sanctity of scientific evidence and the double presumption of innocence that follows an acquittal, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the State of Haryana's appeal against the acquittal of an accused charged with rape and house trespass, holding that a DNA report showing no match between semen found on the prosecutrix's salwar and the accused's blood sample was valid, reliable and a perfectly legitimate basis for acquittal.
A Division Bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Ramesh Kumari found no illegality or irregularity in the trial court's judgment of acquittal and further noted that cumulative discrepancies in the prosecution's own witnesses — including contradictory versions of the place of occurrence and a prosecutrix's account that "does not appeal to common sense" — rendered the prosecution case highly doubtful.
The prosecution case arose from FIR No. 71 dated April 16, 2012 registered at Police Station Kosli, District Rewari under Sections 376 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecutrix alleged that on the evening of April 15, 2012, when she was alone at home as her family had gone to the fields for harvesting, the accused entered the house, forcibly took her to the bathroom of a neighbour named Rampat, gagged her mouth and committed rape. Her mother returned to find her missing, went searching, and allegedly saw the accused fleeing after pushing her. The accused, a constable in Delhi Armed Police, was arrested on April 22, 2012 and denied all allegations, claiming false implication.
The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution case riddled with discrepancies and placing significant reliance on a DNA report dated March 1, 2013 that showed the semen found on the prosecutrix's salwar did not match the accused's blood sample. The State challenged this acquittal before the High Court.
"The Mental Distance Between 'May Be' And 'Must Be' Is Long And Divides Vague Conjectures From Sure Conclusions"
The High Court began by setting out the foundational principles governing appeals against acquittal. Drawing from the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415, the Bench reiterated that while an appellate court has full power to review and re-appreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal, it must bear in mind that an acquittal creates a "double presumption" in favour of the accused — first, the universal presumption of innocence under criminal jurisprudence, and second, the reinforcement of that presumption by the trial court's own finding. "If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court," the Court quoted from Chandrappa.
The Court further drew upon the recent judgment in Raj Pal Singh v. Rajveer and Ors., 2026(1) RCR (Criminal) 177, which itself reaffirmed the principle from Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 that "the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." Reversal of an acquittal, the Bench stressed, "should not be a matter of course just because the other view is considered to be possible by the appellate court."
On DNA Evidence — Prosecution's Own Lapse
The Court made a pointed observation about the prosecution's failure to collect the accused's blood sample at the time of his medical examination. The accused was examined by Dr. Suresh Kumar Kataria on April 22, 2012, but no blood sample was collected at that stage for DNA comparison. It was the accused himself who subsequently moved an application before the learned SDJM seeking DNA profiling to prove his innocence. On the basis of that application, the accused was taken to FSL Madhuban where his blood sample was collected under court supervision.
The DNA report dated March 1, 2013 revealed that the allelic pattern of the semen found on the prosecutrix's salwar (Ex. P-11) did not match the allelic pattern of the accused's blood sample. The State sought to diminish this report by arguing that since the DNA profiling was done at the accused's instance, it should not be treated as conclusively reliable.
The High Court firmly rejected this reasoning. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 4 SCC 69, which held that DNA profile is "valid and reliable" evidence where quality control procedures are followed, the Court held that since the blood sample was collected by FSL Madhuban pursuant to the accused's own application and under a court order, "the integrity of his blood sample and integrity of the salwar Ex. P-11 as sample is not questionable." The Court concluded: "There is no reason for not relying upon the DNA report regarding the DNA profiling of the blood of accused with the semen found on the salwar Ex.P-11 of PW3 prosecutrix. As the DNA of the semen on the salwar Ex.P-11 of the prosecution was found not matching with the blood of the accused and since DNA report is valid and reliable piece of evidence, learned trial Court committed no irregularity or illegality to make this report as one of the basis/reasoning for its judgment of acquittal."
On Prosecution Witnesses — Discrepancies That Defy Common Sense
Beyond the DNA report, the Court catalogued a series of material discrepancies in the prosecution's case that cumulatively rendered it "highly doubtful."
The prosecutrix had claimed that the accused "kept her mouth clubbed with his hand throughout the occurrence" and continued to do so even while he was putting on his pants. The Court noted that the trial court was right to observe that "this version of the prosecutrix is hard to believe and is not acceptable as the same does not appeal to a common sense."
On the place of occurrence, the Court found a glaring contradiction — the prosecutrix in her complaint and court testimony stated the incident took place in Rampat's bathroom, whereas she had told the examining doctor at CHC Nahar that she was sexually assaulted at her own house. The doctor confirmed during cross-examination that the prosecutrix had told her the incident occurred at her house. Two irreconcilable versions of where the crime occurred fatally undermined the prosecution's narrative.
The medical evidence offered the prosecution no stronger footing. The only injury found on the prosecutrix was a contusion on her back, regarding which the doctor had opined that the possibility of it being 48 hours old could not be ruled out — meaning the injury could have predated the alleged incident. Crucially, there was no injury on her chest despite her claim that the accused gave her elbow blows, no marks on her face despite claiming her mouth was gagged throughout, and no dragging marks or injuries on her legs or body despite the allegation that she was forcibly taken 40-45 yards to the bathroom.
The prosecutrix also stated that she gave the accused a nail or tooth bite during the struggle. The accused's MLR, however, showed no such mark on his body — further contradicting her account.
Most damaging of all was the mother's own prior statement to the police (Ex. D1), in which she had stated that she had not seen the accused committing intercourse with her daughter and had only seen the accused coming out of the bathroom. This, the Court noted, meant that even the alleged eyewitness account of the mother did not corroborate the rape.
The Court also noted the defence's credible alibi evidence — attendance records of the Delhi Armed Police showing the accused on election duty at Kingsway Camp, Delhi on April 15, 2012, corroborated by a fellow constable — while acknowledging the trial court had assessed and rejected the alibi during its overall evaluation of the evidence.
On Equal Credibility of Defence Witnesses
The Bench affirmed an important principle of criminal jurisprudence — that defence witnesses are entitled to the same credibility, respect and scrutiny as prosecution witnesses. "The defence evidence cannot be doubted or disbelieved simply because it is brought on record by the accused," the Court held, emphasising that "the goal of the Court is to unearth the truth rather than the sole purpose of conviction of accused by just relying upon the prosecution witnesses."
Finding no merit in the State's challenge, the Division Bench upheld the acquittal and dismissed the appeal. The judgment serves as an important reminder that DNA evidence obtained through a court-supervised process at the accused's instance carries full evidentiary weight, that the prosecution cannot blame the accused for proactively seeking scientific exoneration that its own investigation failed to procure, and that an appellate court must not reverse a carefully reasoned acquittal merely because a different view is possible.
Date of Decision: March 6, 2026
