More than three years after a trial court found a man guilty of rape, the Gauhati High Court earlier this week acquitted him after a DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) test revealed that he was not the father of the child born to the rape victim [Sudip Biswas @ Bura v. The State of Assam and Anr].

Interestingly, the convict Sudip Biswas had in 2023 refused to undergo the DNA test but the High Court had ordered him to do so, observing that individual privacy has to give way to the object of finding out the truth.

In the final verdict passed on his appeal challenging the conviction, a Division Bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Anjan Moni Kalita noted that following the test, it was found that Biswas was not the father of the child.

"As can be seen from the DNA test/profiling done on the appellant and the child, the appellant is not the father of the child. As such, the very basis for the learned Trial Court to have convicted the appellant does not have any legs to stand on," the Court ruled on September 22. 

In the case dating back to 2016, a 48-year-old woman was alleged to have been raped by the 24-year-old Biswas. The woman later gave birth to a child. In July 2022, the trial court convicted the accused under Section 376(1) (rape) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to 12 years imprisonment.

On October 10, 2023, the High Court rejected the convict’s application for suspension of sentence. It held that unless and until a DNA test was done, it would not be proper to release him. Subsequently, the Court ordered a DNA test. A year later, Directorate of Forensic Science, Kahilipara, submitted a report exonerating the accused.

However, in the final verdict, the High Court did not acquit the accused only on the basis of the DNA report. It also examined the victim's testimony and found out that she was told the name of accused by another woman, who was not made a prosecution witness.

"A reading of the testimony of the victim and especially the cross examination, shows that the victim had not seen the face of the rapist during the time she was raped. PW-7 has stated that she came to know the name of the rapist from one .... However, neither has [she] been made a prosecution witness nor has any evidence been given by [her]. As such, there is a huge gap as to how [she] or the victim came to the conclusion that the appellant was the rapist. In her cross examination, the victim has denied the suggestion that she got pregnant because some other person, other than the appellant, had impregnated her. However, as per the DNA test report, the stand taken by the victim is found to be false, as the appellant is not the father of the child conceived by the victim," the Court noted.

Thus, the Court acquitted the accused and ordered his immediate release from custody.

Senior Advocate HRA Choudhury with advocate A Ahmed represented the appellant. 

Additional Public Prosecutor B Bhuyan represented the State.

[Read Judgment]