DNA Report Merely Proves Paternity, Can't Establish Absence Of Consent In Rape Case: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that a DNA report merely proves paternity and cannot establish absence of consent of a woman in a rape case.

Discharging a man in a rape case, Justice Amit Mahajan said:

“….the DNA report merely proves paternity—it does not and cannot, by itself, establish the absence of consent. It is trite law that the offence under Section 376 of the IPC hinges on the absence of consent. Mere proof of sexual relations, even if resulting in pregnancy, is insufficient to prove rape unless it is also shown that the act was non-consensual.”

This was after the prosecution placed reliance on the DNA report which established that the child born to the prosecutrix was biologically fathered by the man.

The Court was dealing with a plea moved by a man challenging the trial court order convicting him in a rape case under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Apart from challenging his conviction, he also challenged the order sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years.

The victim had alleged that she was subjected to repeated acts of sexual assault by the accused who used to call her to his house under the pretext of playing the board game ludo. It was later revealed that she was pregnant.

The allegations were opposed by the man submitting that he was falsely implicated in the case due to ulterior motives and that the prosexutrix filed the case in order to extract money from him. He said that the relationship between him and the prosecutrix was consensual in nature.

Discharging the accused, the Court said that the prosecution failed to offer any reasonable explanation for the delay and nor was there any medical evidence to indicate force or resistance.

It said that the prosecutrix, by her own admission, continued to visit the his home to play Ludo over an extended period, developed feelings of affection towards him and made no disclosure to her family even after the alleged incidents had occurred.

Justice Bansal said that the victim's conduct of proceeding against the accused only after the discovery of her pregnancy gave rise to a strong inference that the FIR was not the result of a spontaneous or genuine complaint of rape, but rather a reaction to the perceived social stigma of an out-of-wedlock pregnancy.

“The inference becomes stronger when one considers that the prosecutrix had developed affectionate feelings for the appellant, as admitted in her cross-examination, and continued to voluntarily visit his house for months. The possibility that the allegations were made to retrospectively reframe a consensual relationship as rape, in order to shield the prosecutrix and her family from societal backlash, cannot be ruled out,” the Court said.

It added that despite having multiple opportunities to report the alleged acts, the victim remained silent and her complaint came only after the pregnancy was discovered.

“Viewed cumulatively, these facts lend credence to the possibility that the FIR was a reaction to social pressure and that the nature of the relationship was re- cast retrospectively to explain an unwanted pregnancy,” the Court said.

Justice Mahajan concluded that the prosecutrix, at the earlier stages, stated only that the accused had asked her not to tell anyone and it was only during her deposition before the Trial Court—after a significant lapse of time — that she added that he had threatened to kill her family.

“No explanation was offered for this belated assertion. This embellishment casts serious doubt on the veracity of the claim, especially when viewed in conjunction with her otherwise consistent conduct of continuing to visit the appellant's house and showing no visible signs of fear or distress,” it said.

Title: NATHU v. STATE

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 411

Click here to read order