NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has ruled that a DNA report merely establishes paternity and cannot, by itself, prove the absence of consent in a rape case. The judgment came as the court discharged a man convicted of rape, observing that proof of sexual relations, even if resulting in pregnancy, does not automatically constitute rape unless it is demonstrated that the act was non-consensual.
Justice Amit Mahajan while discharging the accused said that the DNA report merely proves paternity; it does not and cannot, by itself, establish the absence of consent. It is trite law that the offence under Section 376 of the IPC hinges on the absence of consent.
“Mere proof of sexual relations, even if resulting in pregnancy, is insufficient to prove rape unless it is also shown that the act was non-consensual,” said the Court.
The case arose after the prosecution relied on a DNA report confirming that the child born to the prosecutrix was biologically fathered by the accused.
The man had been convicted under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment by the trial court. He subsequently challenged both his conviction and sentence.
The complainant alleged that the accused repeatedly subjected her to sexual assault, calling her to his house under the pretext of playing the board game Ludo. It was only after she discovered her pregnancy that the complaint was lodged.
The accused, however, argued that the allegations were false and motivated by an attempt to extract money from him. He maintained that the relationship between him and the prosecutrix had been entirely consensual.
The High Court found that the prosecution had failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the complaint. Furthermore, there was no medical evidence indicating force or resistance.
The court noted that the complainant, by her own admission, had continued to visit the accused’s home over an extended period, developed affectionate feelings towards him, and did not disclose the alleged assaults to her family until after discovering her pregnancy.
Justice Navin Chawla observed that the victim’s decision to file a complaint only after her pregnancy was revealed raised doubts about the authenticity of her allegations.
The court remarked: “The inference becomes stronger when one considers that the prosecutrix had developed affectionate feelings for the appellant, as admitted in her cross-examination, and continued to voluntarily visit his house for months. The possibility that the allegations were made to retrospectively reframe a consensual relationship as rape in order to shield the prosecutrix and her family from societal backlash cannot be ruled out.”