DNA Report Is Only Expert Opinion, Not Conclusive Proof of Guilt – Karnataka High Court Affirms Acquittal in POCSO Rape Case

“When the Victim Herself Denies the Offence, DNA Report Alone Cannot Establish Rape” – Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench) refused to interfere with the acquittal of the accused in a POCSO case involving rape allegations, despite DNA evidence establishing paternity. A Division Bench comprising Justice R. Nataraj and Justice Rajesh Rai K held that DNA evidence, being expert opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, cannot be the sole basis for conviction in the absence of supporting oral testimony.

“DNA may be more useful for purposes of investigation but not for raising any presumption of identity in a court of law.” – Karnataka High Court [Para 13]

The Court upheld the trial court’s view that the hostile testimony of the victim and her family rendered the prosecution's case unreliable and unworthy of conviction under Section 376(2) IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

The accused, Nagesh, was charged with raping a 17-year-old girl and impregnating her while working as a labourer in Kibballi Village, Uttara Kannada district. The victim gave birth to a child and lodged a complaint nearly a year later, leading to registration of FIR No. 37/2016 for offences under Section 376(2) IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

During the trial, the victim, her father, grandmother, and uncle all turned hostile, denying any allegation of sexual assault. The prosecution primarily relied on Exhibit P33, the DNA report, which established that the accused was the biological father of the child. The Trial Court, however, acquitted the accused on 27.08.2021, finding no corroboration beyond the forensic report. The State appealed under Sections 378(1) and (3) CrPC.

“Whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified in acquitting the accused despite the DNA report establishing paternity?”

The State argued that the DNA report alone was sufficient, especially since the victim was a minor and had conceived a child, thus satisfying the elements of rape under POCSO. It contended that the trial court had erred by ignoring the scientific evidence.

The defence, however, stressed that the victim categorically denied any sexual act, and in criminal law, conviction must be based on clear, cogent, and corroborated evidence. The defence argued that the DNA report was only expert opinion, not conclusive proof of the offence.

DNA Evidence Must Be Corroborated

The Court thoroughly examined the legal standing of DNA reports under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and held:

“Evidentiary value can be attached to the DNA report issued by the expert... However, if the same does not corroborate the testimony of victim, the Court has to test the veracity of the report based on facts and evidence of the case on hand.” [Para 10]

The Bench highlighted that:

• The victim and her family denied the occurrence of sexual assault.

• There was no independent corroborative evidence, except the DNA report.

• The DNA report only indicates biological paternity, but not the nature of the act, nor the existence of consent, coercion, or the age at the time of the act.

• DNA evidence is based on probabilistic science, and its reliability depends on sample integrity, collection procedure, and laboratory conditions.

Quoting extensively from Manoj v. State of M.P., the Court reiterated: “If DNA evidence is not properly documented, collected, packaged, and preserved, it will not meet the legal and scientific requirements for admissibility in a court of law.” [Para 13]

The Court also cited Pattu Rajan v. State of T.N, observing: “Like all other opinion evidence, the probative value of DNA evidence varies from case to case... It cannot be said to be infallible.” [Para 14]

Hostile Witnesses and the Burden of Proof

The Court emphasised that the victim’s own testimony denying the occurrence of rape could not be brushed aside merely because the forensic report suggested paternity. In criminal cases, where the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the absence of credible oral evidence was fatal.

“The prosecutrix herself firmly stated that the accused did not have any sexual intercourse with her. She is not aware who the father of her child is... The DNA report cannot be solely relied to convict the accused.” [Para 16]

Scope of Appellate Interference in Acquittal

Reaffirming settled principles of appellate review in criminal acquittals, the Court cited the Supreme Court’s consistent view that interference is warranted only when the trial court’s view is perverse or illegal, which was not the case here.

“Since the trial Court has taken a plausible view in the instant case, interference with the impugned judgment is not warranted.” [Para 17]

The High Court concluded that scientific evidence cannot override a clear and consistent denial by the victim herself, and where the only incriminating piece of evidence is a DNA test that confirms paternity but not sexual assault, conviction under POCSO and IPC cannot stand.

“DNA profiling, though scientifically sophisticated, is still opinion evidence... It cannot substitute for direct and credible testimony, especially in criminal trials where stakes are of liberty and reputation.”

Final Order “The Criminal Appeal No. 100570/2022 is hereby dismissed. Acquittal of the accused is confirmed.”

Date of Decision: 10 July 2025