DNA mismatch no shield: Delhi High Court upholds conviction, says minor inconsistencies can’t dilute child rape survivor’s testimony

In a judgment that reiterates the evidentiary value of a child victim’s testimony in sexual offences, the Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of a man for repeated rape of a minor, holding that inconclusive forensic evidence and minor inconsistencies cannot displace an otherwise consistent and trustworthy account of the prosecutrix.Delivering the judgment, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that courts must evaluate the testimony of a prosecutrix “as a whole” and not be swayed by trivial discrepancies that do not go to the root of the matter.Background and Trial Court FindingsThe case traces back to July 2018, when a minor girl was found inside the jhuggi of the appellant by her maternal grandmother during the night hours. The child subsequently disclosed that she had been subjected to repeated sexual assault over several days after being lured on the pretext of food.An FIR was registered, and following investigation, the appellant was put to trial. The Sessions Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, convicted him under Section 376(2)/506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to 12 years’ rigorous imprisonment.The present appeal challenged both conviction and sentence.Before the High Court, one of the primary arguments raised was that the prosecutrix was not a minor but around 17 years old.

The submission, however, did not find favour with the Court.Relying on school records, including the admission register and birth certificate, the Court noted that the date of birth of the prosecutrix was consistently recorded as 23.10.2005. Notably, no suggestion disputing the date of birth or alleging manipulation of school records was put to the witness during cross-examination, nor was any contrary evidence led by the defence.The Court observed:“There was not even a suggestion… that the school records were manipulated… It is only during the course of the arguments that the age… has been claimed to be 17 years.”Therefore, rejecting the argument, the Court held that the prosecution had “proved beyond reasonable doubt” that the prosecutrix was 13 years old at the time of the incident, but even in the absence of this, she would still be a minor according to the POCSO framework.The High Court then carefully revisited the testimonies of the prosecutrix, her grandmother, and her maternal aunt which were the heart of the case, and found these depositions to be consistent on material particulars.The testimony of the grandmother assumed particular significance. She had deposed that when she had found the child missing in the early hours, she began searching for her, and discovered the prosecutrix lying on a bed in a partially undressed condition, with the appellant above her.The prosecutrix, in her testimony, narrated how the appellant had taken her to his jhuggi on several occasions claiming to feed her on meat and subjected her to sexual assault. She further stated that the appellant used to take her at odd hours, commit the act inside the jhuggi, and threaten to run a truck over her if she disclosed the incident.Her version was corroborated by the maternal aunt, who also reached the spot and witnessed the aftermath.The Court found no material contradiction in these testimonies, observing:“They have coherently and consistently deposed that the child was being raped… but was caught red handed.”Section 164 Statement: Variations Not FatalThe defence sought to build its case around inconsistencies between the prosecutrix’s complaint, her deposition in Court, and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.The High Court acknowledged that there were certain variations, including references to the location of the incident.

However, it refused to treat these as fatal.In a key observation, the Court held:“Such minor deviations have to be considered in the light of the fact that the Prosecutrix was a child… she may not have been able to narrate the incident in the exact words.”It went on to caution:“Such deviations… cannot be given over exaggerated emphasis.”The Court concluded that the core of the prosecutrix account of repeated sexual assault on her by the appellant had been preserved in its entirety. An independent neighbour (PW6), though partly hostile, provided crucial linkage in the chain of events. He acknowledged that the grandmother came to him at night accusing him of misconduct and he went with her to jhuggi of the appellant. He further admitted to having seen the prosecutrix and the appellant present there and even slapped the appellant.The Court invoked the principle of res gestae (means "same transaction") under the Evidence Act, noting:“The spontaneity and the natural conduct… in approaching the neighbour, reflects the genuineness of the testimony.”Even though the witness did not fully support the prosecution, his presence and admissions lent assurance to the version of the family members.The appellant’s plea that he had been falsely implicated due to a financial dispute was also examined. This argument was primarily based on the neighbour’s statement that the victim’s family had demanded money.The Court, however, found this argument to be misconceived.

It noted that no particulars of any prior financial dispute were placed on record, nor was such a defence properly articulated during trial. The Court also noted that no such specific plea was taken in the statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., where he merely claimed false implication without elaboration.Importantly, the Court interpreted the demand differently, observing:“It… reflects that after the happening of the incident, the Nani and Mami wanted the money for not reporting the incident.”Thus, rather than supporting the defence, the circumstance was seen as reinforcing the occurrence of the incident itself.DNA Mismatch and Forensic EvidenceOne of the key points of defence was the fact that the DNA match between the appellant and the samples taken on the prosecutrix was non-existent. The High Court dealt with this argument in detail. It noted that while DNA did not match, the FSL report confirmed the presence of human semen in vaginal swabs and smear samples.The Court further took into account the time gap between the incident (early morning hours) and the medical examination conducted later in the day, observing that such delay could reasonably affect forensic findings.The Court also took note of the prosecutrix’s statement that the appellant had used a condom, observing:“This becomes a significant aspect to explain the non-presence of semen or matching of DNA.”Additionally, the time gap between the incident and medical examination was considered relevant. The Court held that in such circumstances:“The not matching of DNA… is quite comprehendible and does not discredit the case of the Prosecution.”Reinforcing settled principles, the Court reiterated that conviction may be made on the testimony of the prosecutrix alone provided that such testimony is inspiring. The Court relied on decisions such asRecourse was made to the decision like State of Punjab v Gurmit Singh and State of Himachal Pradesh v Sanjay Kumar.The Court also referred to Appabhai v State of Gujarat to emphasise that minor discrepancies arising from lapse of memory or perception must not be treated as fatal unless they go to the root of the prosecution case.The Court stressed that seeking corroboration as a matter of rule would be inappropriate, particularly in cases involving sexual assault on minors.The Court observed:“The testimony of the Prosecutrix… has to be taken as a whole… she has withstood the test of cross-examination despite being a young child.”The Court reiterated that insisting on corroboration as a rule in rape cases would amount to adding ‘insult to injury’, and that the testimony of the prosecutrix, if credible, is sufficient to sustain conviction.Conclusion and Final DirectionsOn an overall appreciation of the evidence, the Court found no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial court. It held that the testimony of the prosecutrix was reliable, consistent, and duly corroborated by other witnesses, and that there was no material to suggest false implication.It concluded:“There was overwhelming evidence to convict the Appellant and there was nothing on record, to suggest false implication.”Finding no merit in the appeal, the Court dismissed it along with all pending applications and affirmed the conviction, the Court held:“The Appellant has been rightly convicted and sentenced… There is no merit in the present Appeal, which is hereby dismissed.”CRL. A.109/2025RAM KUBER vs STATE (NCT OF DELHI)For Petitioner: Mr. Adit S. Pujari, Advocate (DHCLSC), Mr. Bhavesh Seth, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth Kaushal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for the State. Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Advocate (DHCLSC) and Ms. Vanshita Gupta, Advocates.(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)