Rajasthan High Court Upholds Acquittal in POCSO Case, Citing Lack of Substantial Evidence

DNA Evidence Alone Insufficient for Conviction Without Corroborative Support, Court Rules

In a significant judgment, the Rajasthan High Court at its Jaipur Bench, presided over by Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, has upheld the acquittal of Shyam Kumar in a case involving serious charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). The decision, dated October 9, 2025, comes as a response to a criminal leave to appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan challenging the acquittal ordered by the Special Judge in Bundi.

The case revolved around allegations that Shyam Kumar had abducted and sexually assaulted a minor girl, charges which included Sections 363, 366A, 376(2)(n), and 376(3) of the IPC, alongside Sections 3/4(2) & 5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act. Despite the presence of a DNA report suggesting the involvement of the accused, the trial court had acquitted him due to lack of corroborative evidence, a decision now upheld by the High Court.

The judgment emphasizes the evidentiary value of DNA reports, categorizing them as expert opinions that cannot solely form the basis for a conviction. Justice Dhand noted the importance of substantial corroborative evidence, particularly when the prosecutrix and her family have not supported the prosecution's case, and no signs of sexual assault were medically identified. The court referenced previous judgments, including those from the Division Bench and the Supreme Court, reinforcing the stance that DNA evidence alone is insufficient for conviction, especially when human error in DNA results cannot be entirely ruled out.

The High Court's decision underscores a crucial legal principle: the presumption of guilt under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act requires the prosecution to substantiate claims of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, the prosecutrix had been declared hostile, and her testimony did not support the allegations, leading the court to reject the appeal filed by the State.

This judgment could have broader implications for how DNA evidence is treated in criminal trials, emphasizing the necessity for comprehensive and corroborative evidence before drawing conclusions about guilt. Legal experts may view this decision as a reinforcement of the principle that scientific evidence must be supported by substantial and corroborative testimonies and findings, ensuring fair trials and upholding justice.

Bottom Line:

DNA report cannot solely form the basis for conviction in absence of substantial evidence, especially when the prosecutrix and her family do not support the prosecution case, and no signs of sexual assault are found on the victim.

Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code Sections 363, 366A, 376(2)(n), 376(3), Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Sections 3/4(2) & 5(l)/6, Indian Evidence Act regarding DNA evidence, Sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Act, Cr.P.C. Section 313.

State of Rajasthan v. Shyam Kumar, (Rajasthan)(Jaipur Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2810773