Archive · 4 Sep 2026
DNA Evidence Did Not Prove Non-Consent, Delhi High Court Rules
The Delhi High Court reviewed a case in which a woman accused a man of rape.
She said he had threatened her and forced sexual relations over several years.
She later had a child, and a DNA test showed that the man was the biological father.
The court explained that DNA can show that two people had sex and who fathered a child.
It cannot show by itself whether the sex was forced or agreed to.
The judges found important differences in parts of the woman’s statements.
They also noted that alleged nude photographs and videos were not found on the man’s phone.
Because the evidence allowed a reasonable possibility that the man was not guilty, the court kept the acquittal in place.
The Delhi High Court upheld a trial court’s acquittal in a rape case.
The court said DNA proved intercourse and paternity, but not whether intercourse was consensual.
The accused had been charged with repeated rape, intoxication, unnatural offences and criminal intimidation.
The court cited inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s accounts and a lack of electronic evidence for alleged threats.
The High Court said an acquittal can be overturned only when the lower court’s findings are legally unsustainable or perverse.
- Who
- The Delhi High Court, Justice Madhu Jain, the accused man and the prosecutrix.
- What
- The High Court dismissed an appeal and upheld the accused’s acquittal on multiple criminal charges.
- When
- The trial court acquittal was issued in October 2024; the child was born in June 2019.
- Where
- The case originated in a Dwarka court and was heard by the Delhi High Court in New Delhi.
- Why
- The High Court found that DNA established intercourse and paternity but did not prove non-consent, while other evidence contained inconsistencies and did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Prosecution’s Position
Court’s Findings
Meaning of DNA evidence
Prosecution’s Position
The prosecution relied on DNA evidence confirming intercourse and paternity in support of the allegations.
Court’s Findings
The court held that DNA established intercourse and paternity but did not establish the circumstances or whether the intercourse was consensual.
Reliability of testimony
Prosecution’s Position
The prosecutrix’s account was presented as evidence of repeated rape, threats, intoxication and other alleged offences; the prosecution also argued that social stigma reduced the likelihood of a false complaint.
Court’s Findings
The court said testimony can independently support a conviction when it inspires confidence, but it must withstand scrutiny. It identified material inconsistencies and said assumptions about motive cannot replace proof.
Appeal against acquittal
Prosecution’s Position
The appeal sought reversal of the trial court’s acquittal based on the prosecution’s interpretation of the evidence.
Court’s Findings
The High Court said another possible view is not enough to overturn an acquittal; intervention requires perversity, illegality, misreading of material evidence or guilt being the only possible conclusion.
- High Court decision
- The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal.
- DNA evidence
- The DNA report identified the accused as the child’s biological father and supported that intercourse occurred.
- Consent finding
- The court said DNA alone cannot establish whether intercourse was consensual or non-consensual.
- Alleged period
- The prosecutrix said the accused had sexual relations with her against her will from 2017 onward.
- Child’s birth
- The prosecutrix gave birth in June 2019.
- Trial court
- A Dwarka court acquitted the accused in October 2024.
- Charges
- The case involved alleged offences under IPC Sections 376(2)(n), 377, 328, 506 and 509.