Section 6 POCSO Act | DNA Evidence & Statutory Presumption Prevail Over Hostile Witnesses and Procedural Lapses: Karnataka High Court

“The evidence of victim is trustworthy and believable... Conviction can safely rest on credible testimony”— In a seminal ruling, the Karnataka High Court, comprising Justice G. Basavaraja, upheld the conviction of an accused for aggravated penetrative sexual assault, emphasizing that technical objections regarding DNA sampling cannot override conclusive scientific evidence and the victim's deposition.

Factual Matrix: A Case of Predatory Assault

The case arose from a harrowing incident involving a 13-year-old girl studying in the 8th standard. The prosecution established that the Appellant, Narayanaswamy, had been stalking the minor victim. Despite warnings from her family, he intercepted her while she was returning from school, dragged her into a eucalyptus grove, and committed sexual assault under the threat of death. The assault was repeated months later. The crime came to light only when the victim complained of severe stomach pain. A medical examination revealed she was seven months pregnant. Subsequently, she gave birth to a baby boy during the pendency of the proceedings. The Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment, a verdict challenged in this appeal.

Contentions on Credibility and Procedure

The Appellant’s counsel mounted a vigorous defense, primarily attacking the credibility of the victim and her grandmother (the complainant). It was argued that the victim’s conduct was "artificial" and "unacceptable" because she failed to disclose the assault or the cessation of her menstrual cycle to her parents for months. The defense further contended that the delay in lodging the FIR and the fact that the panch witnesses to the spot mahazar turned hostile weakened the prosecution's case. Significant objections were also raised regarding the DNA evidence, with the defense alleging procedural lapses in the collection and preservation of blood samples, arguing that the absence of strict adherence to guidelines should render the report unreliable.

“Mere hostility of panch witnesses does not demolish prosecution case when substantive evidence of victim and other witnesses inspires confidence.”

Judicial Analysis: The Weight of DNA Evidence

Justice Basavaraja meticulously dismantled the defense's arguments. The Court placed heavy reliance on the DNA report, which conclusively matched the DNA profiles of the Appellant, the victim, and the child born to her. The Bench observed that while the defense raised technical objections regarding the "guidelines" for blood sample collection, they failed to shake the substantive finding that the Appellant was the biological father. The Court noted that the conviction was not based solely on the DNA report but was corroborated by the victim's consistent testimony. The Court held that minor contradictions or the hostility of panch witnesses could not override the scientific proof of paternity combined with the victim's ocular evidence.

Proof of Minority and Statutory Presumption

The High Court also affirmed the findings regarding the victim's age. Relying on the school admission register and the testimony of the Headmaster, the Court found the victim was indisputably a child (13 years old) at the time of the offense. The Court further invoked the statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act. It was held that once the prosecution proved the foundational facts, the burden shifted to the accused to prove he did not commit the offense or lack the culpable mental state. The Appellant offered no specific defense other than denial and failed to rebut this presumption.

“Once foundational facts are proved, statutory presumption of guilt and culpable mental state operates against the accused.”

The High Court found no perversity or illegality in the Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence. The Bench ruled that the victim’s testimony was cogent and trustworthy, and the delay in disclosure was natural given the threats issued by the accused and the tender age of the victim. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of ten years of rigorous imprisonment was confirmed. This judgment reinforces the judiciary's stance that in cases of sexual violence against minors, scientific evidence and the victim's testimony take precedence over procedural technicalities and hostile witnesses.

Date of Decision: 19/12/2025