A DNA report may establish that sexual intercourse took place, but it cannot, on its own, reveal whether that relationship was consensual or forced, the Delhi High Court has held.
Justice Madhu Jain made the distinction while dismissing a woman’s appeal against the acquittal of a man accused of repeatedly raping her over several years.
The Court noted that while DNA evidence can be important in establishing a physical relationship between two individuals, science cannot answer every question surrounding that relationship.
The DNA report in the case confirmed that the accused was the biological father of the woman’s child. However, the Court held that this finding alone could not establish that the sexual relationship was non-consensual.
“The said evidence is undoubtedly significant as it establishes the fact of sexual intercourse between the parties. However, the DNA report by itself does not establish the circumstances in which such intercourse took place, nor does it determine whether the relationship was consensual or non-consensual,” the Court observed.
Allegations Spanned Several Years
According to the allegations, the accused, who was known to the woman’s family, entered into a physical relationship with her beginning in 2017. The woman claimed that the relationship was established through threats, inducements and, on one occasion, after she was administered an intoxicating substance.
She gave birth to a child in 2019. A subsequent DNA examination confirmed that the accused was the child’s biological father.
However, the FIR was registered in March 2021, nearly four years after the first alleged incident.
The trial court later acquitted the accused, pointing to inconsistencies in the woman’s testimony, the delay in reporting the alleged offence and the defence claim that the relationship had been consensual.
Presumption Does Not End Judicial Scrutiny
The High Court agreed with the trial court’s assessment.
Justice Jain also addressed the presumption under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, observing that the provision does not place a complainant’s testimony beyond judicial examination merely because she denies consent.
The Court examined the evidence and found several inconsistencies in the woman’s version of events.
It also noted that allegations regarding the circulation of nude photographs and videos had not been supported by evidence.
With the DNA report establishing sexual intercourse but not the circumstances in which it occurred, the Court found no reason to interfere with the acquittal.
The appeal was consequently dismissed, leaving the trial court’s decision intact.
