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.
Tripura High Court: In a criminal appeal against the conviction and sentence under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506, Penal Code, 1860, and Section 6, POCSO Act, 2012, the Division Bench of Dr T. Amarnath Goud* and S. Datta Purkayastha, JJ., held that the guilt of Appellant 1 (Convict 1) was proved beyond any reasonable doubt, however, involvement of Appellant 2 was doubtful. The Court stated that a negative DNA report cannot be a basis to infer that rape was not committed by the accused. The Court further stated that a DNA test is a tool for a rape victim to make out a foolproof case against the perpetrator, and not a parameter for acquitting an offender. “The purpose of DNA test in rape case is to facilitate the prosecution to prove its case against the accused and merely because the DNA test has a negative report, it does not exonerate the accused from the offence. However, it exonerates from the paternity of the child.”
Hence, the Court partly allowed the criminal appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence against Appellant 2 (Convict 2).
Background
The present criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants under Section 376(2)(n) read with Section 506, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Section 6, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The Court took cognizance of the matter after the minor victim lodged an “ejahar” and a charge-sheet was filed against the Convicts.
The minor stated that she had been subjected to sexual assault by Convict 1, who purportedly lured her inside his house to commit the crime. Thereafter, Convict 1 intimidated the minor-victim and asked her to return whenever he asked. The minor victim unwillingly visited the convict many times. One day, Convict 2, i.e., brother of Convict 1, allegedly saw them during the act, and started blackmailing her for sexual favours.
Subsequently, after few months, the victim got pregnant and the convict and their family tried to abort her pregnancy. However, due to its advanced stage, the pregnancy could not be terminated. Thereafter, Convict 1 married the victim in a temple in presence of parents of both sides. Subsequently, the victim gave birth to a child.
Left with no other option, the victim filed an “ejahar”/complaint with the police. Consequently, the charge-sheet was filed, which led to conviction and sentencing for the offences of criminal intimidation and rape of a minor.
Aggrieved, the convicts preferred an appeal against the said conviction.
Analysis and decision
At the outset, the Court pointed out that the fact that the convicts’ father gave cash for the victim’s abortion, remained unchallenged by the convicts. The Court noted that this proved that the father of the convicts had knowledge of the sexual relationship. The Court further noted that the statements of other witnesses corroborated these facts. The Court further stated that statements of the villagers reinforced the prosecution’s version, as a panchayat meeting was called to settle the matter between Convict 1 and the victim.
On the issue of age of the victim, the Court perused her original birth certificate, and found that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident. The convicts did not challenge this fact either.
The Court noted that the conviction had been challenged based on the DNA testing report, which suggested that neither convict was the father of the newborn child. The Court rejected this contention and opined that DNA testing or analysis in a rape case is merely to match an accused’s DNA with that found during investigation. The Court held that a negative DNA report merely exonerates an accused from the paternity of the child.
The Court dissected the facts and materials on record, and stated that it was clear that Convict 1 had sexual intercourse with the victim on multiple occasions. The Court pointed out that since the victim was a minor, the sexual intercourse was either way a rape by definition under Section 375(6) IPC. The Court thus held that the guilt of Convict 1 was proved by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt.
Regarding the involvement of Convict 2, the Court took note of the inconsistencies in the statements during trial. The Court held that suspicions, however, grave in nature, should not amount to proof, and found that the discrepancies with respect to the involvement of Convict 2 cast a shadow of doubt.
Hence, the Court partly allowed the appeal, by affirming the conviction and sentence of Convict 1 and acquitting Convict 2.
[Prasanta Debnath v. State of Tripura, 2026 SCC OnLine Tri 93, decided on 04-02-2026]
*Judgment authored by Dr. T. Amarnath Goud, J.
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the appellants: S. Bhattacharjee and K. Nath, Advocates
For the respondent: R. Saha, Additional P.P.