The court held that where DNA evidence conclusively disproves the accused’s paternity and foundational facts are unproved, conviction based solely on the prosecutrix’s allegations is unsafe. This judgment upholds existing Supreme Court and High Court precedent, clarifies POCSO Section 29’s presumption, and is binding precedent for Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Crl.A./392/2024 of ABDUL HAMID Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR |
| CNR | GAHC010244412024 |
| Date of Registration | 22-11-2024 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Of |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
| Bench | Division Bench: Justice Michael Zothankhuma, Justice Mitali Thakuria |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within jurisdiction; persuasive for other High Courts. |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedent on evidentiary value of Section 164 CrPC statements and burden under POCSO. |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law/Protections under POCSO Act and IPC Section 376(3) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that conviction cannot be based solely on the prosecutrix’s testimony when her primary allegation (pregnancy as a result of rape by the accused) is disproved by DNA evidence. Section 164 CrPC statements are not substantive evidence, and the prosecution must establish foundational facts before presumption under Section 29 POCSO can be raised. Where the victim’s testimony is contradicted by scientific evidence, her testimony loses reliability and conviction is unsafe. The prosecution must prove foundational facts at least on a preponderance of probabilities; this was not done here. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The minor granddaughter of the accused alleged rape and pregnancy by her grandfather. During investigation and trial, DNA evidence confirmed the accused was not the father. The prosecutrix’s 164 CrPC statement accused the accused of repeated assault, but her testimony in court was inconsistent and uncorroborated. Defence argued the case was motivated by a property dispute. The trial court convicted, but on appeal, the High Court found prosecution failed to prove foundational facts, and held conviction unsafe. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court (to the extent of legal reasoning and application of precedent) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that statements under Section 164 CrPC are not substantive evidence and can only be used for corroboration or contradiction.
- Clarifies that the prosecution must establish foundational facts (including paternity, if relevant) before the Section 29 POCSO presumption can apply.
- Holds that where DNA evidence contradicts prosecutrix’ allegation of paternity, her uncorroborated testimony cannot be the sole basis for conviction.
- Cites law that “when two views are possible,” the court must accept the view in favour of the accused.
- Lawyers may cite this judgment in cases where scientific or medical evidence undermines the core allegation, especially under POCSO.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court scrutinized the prosecutrix’s in-court testimony and her Section 164 CrPC statement, noting inconsistencies and her attribution of pregnancy solely to the accused.
- Relied on Supreme Court precedent (Ram Kishan Singh, R. Shaji, Baid Nath Sah) to state that Section 164 CrPC statements are not substantive evidence.
- Noted that the DNA test definitively excluded the accused as father, undermining the prosecutrix’s account.
- Discussed Supreme Court’s “sterling witness” standard (Rai Sandeep @ Deepu): prosecutrix’s evidence must be consistent, impeccable and inspire confidence.
- Followed Bhupen Kalita v. State of Assam guidelines that POCSO’s Section 29 presumption arises only after the prosecution proves foundational facts on a preponderance of probabilities.
- Concluded that in absence of foundational facts (paternity and credible account of assault), and with adverse DNA evidence, conviction is unsafe even if the accused was named in the Section 164 and oral evidence.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The Special Judge did not properly appreciate the evidence and convicted only on the basis of the victim’s (PW-1) statement.
- The victim’s statements were self-contradictory and not corroborated by other evidence.
- Medical evidence did not support prosecution, and DNA testing showed the accused was not the father.
- Conviction cannot be based solely on statement under Section 164 CrPC; such statements can only be used to corroborate or contradict court evidence.
- Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond doubt, and with two possible views, the benefit of doubt should go to the accused.
- Defensive evidence proved false implication due to a land dispute.
Respondent (State):
- The victim was consistent in her allegations at all stages; there was no suggestion of tutoring or motive.
- DNA evidence alone should not lead to acquittal when prosecutrix brings serious allegations against a close relative.
Factual Background
The informant, mother of the victim, filed an FIR in May 2021 alleging the accused (her father) raped her minor daughter, leading to pregnancy. The incident allegedly occurred during the girl’s stay at her grandfather’s house for household work. The accused was charged under Section 376(3) IPC and Section 6 POCSO. An investigation followed, including DNA testing, which revealed the accused was not the child’s father. At trial, 8 prosecution and 3 defence witnesses were examined. The trial court convicted the accused, but the High Court found the prosecution’s case unsupported by reliable evidence and exculpated by DNA results.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 376(3) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) were the relevant charging provisions.
- Section 164 CrPC was analyzed: statement under this section is not substantive evidence, but can be used for contradiction or corroboration as per S. 157 of the Indian Evidence Act.
- Section 29 POCSO (statutory presumption of guilt): The presumption applies only after prosecution sets up foundational facts on preponderance of probabilities; here, foundational paternity facts failed.
- Discussed the burden on defence under POCSO and how it may be discharged once prosecution’s core facts collapse.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms and applies Supreme Court and existing Gauhati High Court precedent on evidentiary value and POCSO burden of proof.