DNA Evidence Upholds POCSO Conviction Despite Hostile Witnesses

Source: Madras High Court

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in the case of Murugan v. State (2026), held that forensic DNA evidence establishing the paternity of a child born to a minor victim is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 5(j)(ii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, notwithstanding the hostility of the victim and her parents during trial. The Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence from life imprisonment to twenty years' rigorous imprisonment, and additionally set aside the conviction under Section 506 IPC for want of supporting evidence.

What was the Background of Murugan v. State (2026) Case? 

• The case originated from a complaint filed in early 2020 involving the repeated penetrative sexual assault of a thirteen-year-old girl. Upon discovery of the victim's pregnancy, her mother lodged a formal complaint with the police, leading to the arrest of the accused, Murugan, who was approximately forty years of age. 
• During trial, the victim and her family members turned hostile, materially departing from the prosecution's case and presenting a significant challenge to conviction. The trial court, however, placed reliance on the DNA report submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory, which established that the child born to the victim was fathered by the accused, and sentenced him to life imprisonment under the POCSO Act. 
• The accused challenged the conviction and sentence before the Madras High Court, contending that the hostile testimony of the victim and her parents rendered the prosecution's case unsustainable and further attacking the DNA evidence on grounds of alleged gaps in the chain of custody and procedural irregularities in the furnishing of documents under Section 207 of the CrPC.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the evidentiary value of DNA evidence: The Court held that a positive DNA report establishing paternity is clinching forensic evidence capable of sustaining a conviction for penetrative sexual assault, even where direct testimonial evidence falters due to hostile witnesses. The Deputy Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory (PW13) had adequately explained the DNA results before the trial court, and those findings stood unimpeached. 
• On the integrity of the chain of custody: The Court distinguished the present case from Karandeep Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand, where DNA evidence was discarded due to tainted collection procedures. In the present case, the blood samples were collected and handled with due care following the birth of the child, and no objection regarding the collection procedure had been raised by the accused at any stage of the proceedings. The Court accordingly rejected the belated challenge to the chain of custody as untenable. 
• On the Section 164 CrPC statement of the victim: The Court held that the voluntary statement recorded by the victim under Section 164 of the CrPC remained intact and could be used both for contradiction as well as corroboration of other evidence on record, thereby providing an additional basis for sustaining the prosecution's case alongside the DNA report. 
• On the procedural objection under Section 207 CrPC: The Court noted that the accused had been given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the expert witnesses and had in fact exercised that right. The objection regarding the furnishing of documents under Section 207 CrPC was therefore rejected as having caused no prejudice to the accused. 
• On modification of sentence: While upholding the conviction under Section 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act, the Court took a calibrated approach to sentencing. Having regard to the hostile nature of the witnesses and the overall circumstances of the trial, the Court modified the sentence from life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for a term of twenty years. The conviction under Section 506 IPC for criminal intimidation was set aside for want of evidence, the hostile testimony of the victim having left that charge uncorroborated. 
• Accordingly, the Court upheld the conviction under the POCSO Act, modified the sentence to twenty years' rigorous imprisonment, and set aside the conviction under Section 506 IPC.

What is the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012? 

Important Sections: 

• Section 2(1)(d): "Definition of Child" — Defines a child as any person below 18 years of age. 
• Section 3: "Penetrative Sexual Assault" — Covers any act of penile or non-penile penetration of a child's bodily orifices, or applying the mouth to the child's sexual organs, whether committed directly or by making the child perform the act. 
• Section 4: "Punishment for Penetrative Sexual Assault" — Imprisonment of not less than 10 years, extendable to life. Where the child is below 16 years, the minimum is 20 years. 
• Section 5: "Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault" — Applies where the offence is committed by a public servant, armed forces member, gang, relative, or person in a position of trust; or results in pregnancy, HIV, grievous hurt, or death; or the child is below 12 years. 
• Section 6: "Punishment for Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault" — Rigorous imprisonment of not less than 20 years, extendable to life imprisonment or death, with fine payable to the victim for rehabilitation. 
• Section 7: "Sexual Assault" — Covers touching of a child's sexual organs or any physical contact with sexual intent not involving penetration. Skin-to-skin contact is not required; sexual intent is the determining factor. 
• Section 8: "Punishment for Sexual Assault" — Imprisonment of not less than 3 years, extendable to 5 years, and fine. 
• Section 9 & 10: "Aggravated Sexual Assault and its Punishment" — Section 9 mirrors the aggravating circumstances of Section 5 as applied to sexual assault. Section 10 prescribes imprisonment of 5 to 7 years and fine. 
• Section 11 & 12: "Sexual Harassment and its Punishment" — Section 11 covers acts such as gestures, repeated contact, threats, or enticement with sexual intent. Section 12 prescribes imprisonment extendable to 3 years and fine. 
• Section 13–15: "Child Pornography" — Section 13 penalises use of a child for pornographic purposes. Section 14 prescribes 5 to 7 years imprisonment. Section 15 punishes storage of such material, with enhanced punishment for commercial possession. 
• Section 16–18: "Abetment and Attempt" — Abetment and attempt to commit any offence under the Act are independently punishable, with punishment extending to half the maximum prescribed for the substantive offence. 
• Section 19 & 21: "Mandatory Reporting" — Section 19 makes it obligatory for any person with knowledge of an offence to report it to the police. Section 21 makes non-reporting a punishable offence, though children are exempt. 
• Section 28 & 35: "Special Courts and Time Limit" — Section 28 mandates designation of a Special Court in each district. Section 35 requires evidence to be recorded within 30 days and trial completed within one year of cognizance. 
• Section 29 & 30: "Presumptions" — The accused is presumed to have committed the offence and to have acted with culpable mental state, unless proved otherwise beyond reasonable doubt. 
• Section 33 & 36: "Child-Friendly Trial" — Section 33 mandates a child-friendly court environment, prohibits aggressive questioning, and protects the child's identity. Section 36 prohibits direct exposure of the child to the accused during testimony.