DNA Evidence Can Sustain POCSO Conviction Despite Hostile Witnesses: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has held that DNA evidence can sustain a conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, commonly known as the POCSO Act, even when the child victim and her parents turn hostile during trial. A bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan upheld the conviction of a man named Murugan, relying on a DNA report that established he had fathered a child born to the 13 year old victim.

The ruling in Murugan v. State addresses a recurring and difficult problem in child sexual assault prosecutions: witnesses who resile from their statements under family or social pressure. The court's answer is that reliable scientific evidence does not lose its force merely because oral testimony collapses.

The Case and the Trial Court Verdict

The prosecution alleged that the accused, around 40 years old, committed penetrative sexual assault on the 13 year old victim on 18 January 2020. During medical examination the victim was found to be five weeks pregnant, and she gave birth on 24 October 2020, after the chargesheet had been filed. The Fast Track Mahila Court at Theni convicted Murugan on 31 July 2023, sentencing him to life imprisonment under the POCSO Act, with a further conviction under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code for criminal intimidation.

On appeal, Murugan argued that neither the victim nor her parents supported the prosecution case, that the conviction rested solely on the DNA report, that the chain of custody of the blood samples was not established, and that DNA related documents were not supplied to him as required under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Why the High Court Trusted the DNA Report

The High Court rejected each argument. It noted that after the child was born, the Child Welfare Committee asked the investigating officer to arrange DNA testing. Blood samples of the accused, the victim and the child were collected through the Government Medical College Hospital, Theni and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai through the trial court. The samples reached the laboratory within six days and there was no material suggesting tampering or procedural irregularity.

On the documents argument, the court observed that the DNA documents did not exist when the final report was filed, since the child was born later, and that the accused had in fact cross examined the laboratory's Deputy Director using those very documents. The trial court, the bench held, was right to rely on the DNA report as the foundational fact substantiating the charge.

Conviction Modified, Sentence Recalibrated

The High Court did modify the conviction in one respect. The charge under Section 5(l) of the POCSO Act, which applies to repeated penetrative sexual assault, could not be sustained because the victim had turned hostile and there was no clear evidence of repetition. The court instead convicted Murugan under Section 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act, which covers penetrative sexual assault that results in the child becoming pregnant. The sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than 20 years.

The decision illustrates how courts calibrate charges to the evidence that survives trial. It also fits a wider pattern of appellate scrutiny of criminal procedure, from the Supreme Court's insistence on fair treatment of accused persons in bail conditions to its clarification that refusing to answer an investigating officer's questions is not non cooperation.

What This Means for POCSO Prosecutions

For investigators, the case underscores the value of promptly secured, properly documented scientific evidence. A clean chain of custody, transmission through the court and timely forensic analysis allowed the DNA report to stand on its own. For defence lawyers, the ruling signals that attacking hostile witness testimony is not enough where scientific evidence independently establishes the foundational facts. For victims and families, it shows that a prosecution does not automatically fail when witnesses come under pressure to retract.

Related Reading

Accused persons and complainants alike should understand the procedural stages of a criminal case. See our guide on quashing an FIR under Section 528 BNSS.

For how courts handle the stage before taking cognizance in serious economic offences, read our analysis of pre cognizance hearings under Section 223 BNSS.

Complaints involving cruelty and harassment within families follow their own track. See our guide on filing a dowry harassment case under Section 85 BNS.

Key Takeaways

The Madras High Court has confirmed that DNA evidence with a proven chain of custody can independently sustain a POCSO conviction even if the victim and her parents turn hostile. The conviction was modified to Section 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act, which covers assault resulting in pregnancy, and the sentence was fixed at 20 years of rigorous imprisonment. The ruling strengthens the role of forensic science in child protection cases where oral testimony is vulnerable to pressure.