6 June 2026 Legal Updates

Madras High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Relying On Child's DNA Report Despite Survivor Turning Hostile; Modifies Sentence To 20 Yrs

In a significant ruling concerning the evidentiary value of scientific reports, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court upheld the conviction of a man for the sexual assault of a 13-year-old girl, despite the victim and her parents turning hostile. The Court held that a DNA report confirming paternity is a "foundational fact" that can sustain a conviction even in the absence of oral testimony from the victim.

Case Details

• Case Title: Murugan v. The State rep. by The Inspector of Police
• Court: Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)
• Judge(s): Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan
• Case No: Crl. A(MD)No.1034 of 2023
• Stage of Proceedings: Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC challenging the conviction and life sentence.
• Statutory Provisions Involved:
  • POCSO Act, 2012 – Section 5(l), Section 5(j)(ii), Section 6
  • Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Section 506(1)

Facts of the Case

• The appellant (aged 40) was accused of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl in January and February 2020.
• Medical examination revealed the victim was pregnant. She subsequently gave birth to a child on October 24, 2020.
• During the trial, the victim (PW3) and her parents (PW1 & PW2) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's case. The victim even denied the birth of the child.
• However, DNA testing was conducted, which conclusively proved that the appellant was the biological father of the child.
• The Trial Court (Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni) convicted the appellant under Section 5(l) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 of the IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment.

Issues Raised

1. Whether a conviction can be sustained based on a DNA report when the victim and material witnesses have turned hostile?
2. Whether there were procedural lapses in the chain of custody of DNA samples or a violation of Section 207 CrPC regarding the furnishing of documents?
3. Whether the charge under Section 5(l) (repeated assault) was appropriate given the hostile nature of the witnesses?

Contentions of the Petitioner (Appellant)

• The victim and her parents did not support the prosecution; therefore, the oral evidence was nil.
• The conviction relied solely on the DNA report, which the appellant claimed was procedurally flawed.
• Relevant DNA documents were not furnished to the accused as mandated under Section 207 CrPC.
• The DNA samples were not marked through the expert who prepared the report but through the Investigating Officer (IO).

Reliance on Supreme Court Judgment

The petitioner relied on: Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand (2025).

• In that case, the SC acquitted an accused because the DNA collection procedure was "tainted" and "full of lacunae," and the trial was conducted in a hasty manner without giving the accused a fair chance to cross-examine.

Contentions of the State

• The IO explained the sample collection process clearly.

• The DNA report was a conclusive scientific fact proving the assault.
• The accused’s counsel had actually cross-examined the DNA expert (PW13), proving they were in possession of the relevant documents.
• The 164 CrPC statement of the victim, where she admitted her signature, provided necessary corroboration.

Court's Reasoning & Key Findings

1. DNA as Conclusive Proof: The Court held that the DNA report (Exhibits P9, P10, etc.) made it "abundantly clear" that the appellant was the father. Scientific evidence of paternity serves as a "foundational fact" to substantiate the charge of penetrative sexual assault.
2. Corroboration via Section 164 Statement: Although the victim turned hostile, she admitted the signature on her Section 164 statement was hers and that it wasn't given under coercion. The Court held this statement could be used for corroboration.
3. Proper Chain of Custody: Unlike the Karandeep Sharma case, the Court found no evidence of tampering here. Samples were collected by medical officers and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) within six days.
4. No Violation of Section 207 CrPC: The DNA test happened after the child was born (which was after the initial police report). Since the accused’s lawyer cross-examined the FSL Deputy Director (PW13) using the DNA documents, the plea that documents weren't furnished was rejected.
5. Re-classification of Offence: Because the victim was hostile, there was no oral evidence to prove "repeated" assaults [Section 5(l)]. However, the pregnancy was a proven fact. Therefore, the Court altered the conviction to Section 5(j)(ii) (Aggravated penetrative sexual assault causing pregnancy).

Final Verdict

• Appeal Partly Allowed.
• Conviction Modified: Conviction under Section 5(l) is altered to Section 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act.
• Sentence Reduced: The sentence of Life Imprisonment is modified to 20 years Rigorous Imprisonment.
• IPC Conviction Set Aside: The conviction under Section 506 IPC (Criminal Intimidation) was set aside as the witnesses turned hostile.

Legal Principles Established

1. Scientific Evidence vs. Hostile Witnesses: In cases of sexual assault resulting in pregnancy, scientific evidence (DNA) can override the hostility of witnesses to secure justice for the child.
2. DNA Chain of Custody: If samples are collected by medical professionals and forwarded to the court/FSL promptly, the "chain of custody" is deemed secure unless specific tampering is proven.
3. Use of 164 Statements: A hostile witness’s previous statement under Section 164 CrPC remains a valid tool for corroboration if the witness admits the statement was made voluntarily.

The Relevant POCSO Provisions

• Section 5(j)(ii): Aggravated penetrative sexual assault that results in the pregnancy of the child.
• Section 5(l): Aggravated penetrative sexual assault committed "more than once or repeatedly" on the same child.
• Section 6: Prescribes punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault—not less than 20 years, which may extend to life imprisonment or death.