POCSO Act | Madras HC ‘Shocked’ At Prosecution For Not Seeking Further Probe After Negative DNA Report Of Accused; Orders Re-Investigation

“It’s stunning that regardless of the adverse DNA report, the prosecution has not sought courtroom permission for additional investigation or pursued figuring out the person accountable for the being pregnant. Two prospects exist: (1) Two perpetrators, with one accountable for the being pregnant, or (2) a single perpetrator accountable for each the assault and being pregnant, doubtlessly exonerating the petitioner. Additional investigation is essential to find out the precise perpetrator and the petitioner’s involvement, if any,” the courtroom mentioned.

Justice Ok Murali Shankar mentioned that POCSO offences are severe in nature stressing that it was excessive time for the prosecution to make sure a correct investigation.

“POCSO offences are severe in nature, attracting extra extreme punishments and warrant meticulous investigation to make sure justice. Sadly, some instances exhibit informal and mechanical investigation, disregarding penalties. It’s excessive time for the prosecution to make sure thorough and correct investigation upholding the gravity of the instances,” the courtroom mentioned.

The courtroom was listening to a felony revision petition in opposition to the order of the Mahila Courtroom, dismissing the discharge petition of an accused in a POCSO case.

The prosecution’s case was that the accused had sexually assaulted his aunt’s daughter, impregnating her. The de facto complainant, the sufferer’s mom, had complained that the accused, who was working as a Grasp in a Mess, had sexual activity along with her daughter on the false promise of marriage, because of which, the sufferer grew to become pregnant.

On the idea of the mom’s grievance, a case was registered and cost sheet was filed for offences underneath Sections 506 (i) IPC, Part 5(1), Part 5(j) (ii), Part 5(n), and Part 6 of the POCSO Act.

Through the pendency of the trial, the accused submitted an software underneath Part 482 of the CrPC looking for route to the police to conduct a DNA check. The DNA check was carried out as per the courtroom order, and the Forensic Sciences Division gave its opinion that the accused was excluded from being the father of the male youngster born to the sufferer. Following this, the accused filed an software for discharge, which got here to be dismissed.

The current revision petition was filed in opposition to the order dismissing the discharge petition.

The petitioner argued that the DNA report deserved to be accepted until it was completely dented and that the trial choose had failed to contemplate that the DNA proof was a predominant forensic approach for figuring out criminals. He argued that the principle case of the prosecution was that the petitioner had impregnated the sufferer, which was disproved by the DNA report. Thus, he argued that the very basis of the prosecution’s case stumbled, and there was no scope for continuing additional.

Then again, the Authorities Advocate argued that the adverse DNA report by itself was not a floor to discharge the accused, because the sufferer woman herself had implicated the accused as the one that had dedicated penetrative sexual assault on her thrice. He identified that there have been different supplies ample to proceed with the trial. It was additionally submitted that the testimony of the sufferer itself was ample to set off the presumption of guilt underneath Part 29 of the POCSO Act and as soon as the inspiration of prosecution case had been laid by legally admissible proof, it was upon the accused to determine that he had not dedicated the offence.

The courtroom famous that the prosecution case had two facet – first, the fee of penetrative sexual assault and second, the being pregnant of the sufferer woman. The courtroom added that when the DNA report contradicted the being pregnant declare, it was stunning that the prosecution didn’t look for additional investigation to determine the person accountable for the being pregnant.

Contemplating the information of the case and the way during which the investigation was carried out, the courtroom invoked its energy underneath Part 482 CrPC and quashed the chargesheet filed by the police.

The courtroom then directed the Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District to appoint a police officer within the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and directed the DSP so nominated to reinvestigate the case and file a closing report inside 3 months.

Noting that no youngster needs to be bastardised, the courtroom additionally directed the investigating officer to take steps to conduct DNA check on suspected accused with out arresting him and to proceed as per regulation, if the check was constructive.

The courtroom additionally made it clear that the petitioner was not exonerated from the case and requested the IO to research into the petitioner’s involvement within the case.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. G. Karuppasamy Pandian for Mr. A. Purantharadhas

Counsel for Respondents: Mrs. M. Aasha Authorities Advocate (Crl. Facet)

Case Title: XXX v. The Inspector of Police

Quotation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 222