Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Delhi High Court: In a criminal appeal filed by the appellant, accused of committing rape, criminal intimidation, and aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon his own minor daughter, a Division Bench of Prathiba M. Singh* and Madhu Jain, JJ., dismissed the appeal and held that the conviction in was based on credible testimony corroborated by conclusive scientific evidence and therefore, no interference was warranted with the POCSO conviction of the accuses father who impregnated minor daughter.
Brief Facts
In the instant matter, police station received the information that “the victim had been raped two to three times by her own father”. Upon the prosecutrix and her mother visiting the police station, the complaint was recorded, wherein the prosecutrix stated that she was studying in Class VI and that her father had “forcibly established physical relations with her when she was sleeping in her house”. An FIR was registered for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). It was further disclosed that the prosecutrix was three months’ pregnant at the time of registration of the FIR.
Subsequently, the appellant was subjected to potency testing and blood sample collection. The pregnancy of the prosecutrix was medically terminated at Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital, and fetal material was preserved and sent for forensic examination. The samples were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Rohini, for DNA profiling.
Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed and charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 376(2), 376(3), 506(II) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, to which he pleaded not guilty.
Proceedings before the Trial Court
During trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses, including the prosecutrix, her mother, police officials, and the forensic expert from the FSL. The prosecutrix, while attempting at certain stages to support her father, made crucial admissions. Although the prosecutrix sought to resile partially, the Trial Court noted that “it clearly emerges that the father had established a physical relationship with the daughter”.
The mother of the victim, however, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, stating that she did not know who was responsible for her daughter’s pregnancy. Despite her hostility, she admitted that the FIR was lodged when the pregnancy came to light.
The most critical evidence relied upon by the Trial Court consisted of two DNA reports dated 14-01-2022 and 22-03-2022, which conclusively established that the appellant was the biological father of the fetus. The FSL expert (PW-7) deposed that “DNA profiling performed on the exhibits provided is sufficient to conclude that the source of blood sample of accused is the biological father of the fleshy material.”
Relying upon the prosecutrix’s earlier consistent statements, the scientific evidence, and the surrounding circumstances, the Trial Court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant was convicted for rape, aggravated penetrative sexual assault, and criminal intimidation.
Parties’ Contentions
Before the Appellant Court, the appellant contended that the conviction was unsustainable as the prosecutrix and her mother had not supported the prosecution case. It was further argued that the chain of custody of samples was not proved, as the DNA testing was conducted several days after collection, and the police official who deposited the samples at the FSL was not examined. It was submitted that the DNA report could not be treated as the sole basis of conviction, particularly when the prosecutrix had stated that she did not know how she became pregnant.
The State opposed the appeal, contending that the case was supported by unimpeachable scientific evidence. It was argued that although the prosecutrix attempted to resile, she had furnished reasons for doing so, namely economic hardship and the absence of a source of livelihood for the family. The prosecution emphasised that the DNA evidence conclusively established paternity and relied on judicial precedents recognising DNA profiling as scientifically accurate and conclusive proof. It was further submitted that no prejudice was caused to the appellant on account of any alleged procedural lapse.
Court’s Analysis
The Court relied on Bhanei Prasad v. State of H.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1636, where it was held that “when a father who is expected to be a shield, a guardian, a moral compass, becomes the source of the most severe violation of a child’s bodily integrity and dignity, the betrayal is not only personal but institutional… To entertain a plea for leniency in a case of this nature would not merely be misplaced, it would constitute a betrayal of the Court’s own constitutional duty to protect the vulnerable. When a child is forced to suffer at the hands of her own father, the law must speak in a voice that is resolute and uncompromising. There can be no mitigation in sentencing for crimes that subvert the very notion of family as a space of security.”
The Court examined the evidence in detail and noted the “conflict that the victim and her mother faced during this trial”. The Court observed that the pregnancy of the prosecutrix was detected by a third party and was medically confirmed at the time of registration of the FIR.
The Court held that “there can be no doubt, whatsoever on the basis of the scientific evidence, that the father i.e., the Appellant had established the physical relationship with his own daughter, who was a minor.” The Court found the DNA reports to be conclusive and unimpeachable, clearly establishing the biological relationship between the appellant and the fetus.
On the argument regarding non-examination of the police official who transported the samples, the Court held that once the samples were received at the FSL with intact hospital seals and no tampering was alleged, the omission did not vitiate the prosecution case.
The Court further held that in offences of this nature, particularly where the perpetrator is the father, Section 29 of the POCSO Act creates a statutory presumption of guilt which had not been rebutted by the appellant. Emphasising the gravity of the offence, the Court observed that “a father who is supposed to safeguard the safety and security of his own daughter cannot be shown any relaxation in such cases.”
Court’s Decision
The Court found the appeal to be devoid of merit and held that the conviction was based on credible testimony corroborated by conclusive scientific evidence and that no interference was warranted. The Court dismissed the application for suspension of sentence, and the affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
[DRY v. State (NCT of Delhi), CRL.A. 1494/2025, Decided on 15-01-2026]
*Judgment by Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr Gautam Khazanchi and Ms. Pooja Deepak, Counsel for the Appellant
Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with Ms. Vibha and Mr. Lalit Luthra, Counsel for the Respondent
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
