DNA test proves sexual intercourse but does not prove it was consensual: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently held that the DNA report only proves that sexual intercourse took place but does not establish whether or not the relationship was consensual [KXXXXX v The State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr].

Justice Madhu Jain ruled that DNA evidence is significant since it establishes the fact of sexual intercourse between the parties, but it does not provide the circumstances in which the intercourse took place. 

“The said evidence is undoubtedly significant as it establishes the fact of sexual intercourse between the parties. However, the DNA report by itself does not establish the circumstances in which such intercourse took place, nor does it determine whether the relationship was consensual or non-consensual,” the Court observed. 

Justice Jain returned the finding while dismissing an appeal filed by a woman challenging the acquittal of a man she had accused of repeatedly raping her over several years. 

The Court held that DNA evidence establishing him as the biological father of her child did not, by itself, prove the sexual relationship was non-consensual.

It was alleged that the accused, known to the woman’s family, established a physical relationship with her from 2017 through threats, inducements and, on one occasion, by administering an intoxicant. She gave birth to a child in 2019, and a DNA test confirmed the accused was the father. An FIR was registered in March 2021, nearly four years after the first alleged incident.

The trial court acquitted the accused, citing inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, an unexplained delay in reporting the offence, and his defence that the relationship was consensual and known to her husband.

Justice Jain upheld the trial court’s view. 

She also held that the presumption under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, which shifts the burden to the accused once the prosecutrix denies consent, does not exempt her testimony from judicial scrutiny.

The High Court pointed to several discrepancies in the complainant's testimony. It noted that allegations that the accused had circulated nude photographs and videos were also unsupported. 

Therefore, the Bench upheld the trial court order and dismissed the woman’s appeal. 

Advocates Jitendra Kumar Tiwari and Abhishek Chaudhary appeared for the appellant-woman. 

Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Ajay Vikram Singh represented the State. 

[Read Judgment]