POCSO Act | Madras HC 'Shocked' At Prosecution For Not Seeking Further Probe After Negative DNA Report Of Accused; Orders Re-Investigation
Upasana Sajeev
30 Jun 2025 6:15 PM IST
The Madras High Court recently ordered a re-investigation in a POCSO case after noting that the police had failed to conduct further investigation when the DNA test of the accused gave a negative result. The court said that a further investigation was crucial to find the actual culprit in the case.
“It is shocking that despite the negative DNA report, the prosecution has not sought court permission for further investigation or pursued identifying the individual responsible for the pregnancy. Two possibilities exist: (1) Two perpetrators, with one responsible for the pregnancy, or (2) a single perpetrator responsible for both the assault and pregnancy, potentially exonerating the petitioner. Further investigation is crucial to determine the actual culprit and the petitioner's involvement, if any,” the court said.
Justice K Murali Shankar said that POCSO offences are serious in nature stressing that it was high time for the prosecution to ensure a proper investigation.
“POCSO offences are serious in nature, attracting more severe punishments and warrant meticulous investigation to ensure justice. Unfortunately, some cases exhibit casual and mechanical investigation, disregarding consequences. It is high time for the prosecution to ensure thorough and proper investigation upholding the gravity of the cases,” the court said.
The court was hearing a criminal revision petition against the order of the Mahila Court, dismissing the discharge petition of an accused in a POCSO case.
The prosecution's case was that the accused had sexually assaulted his aunt's daughter, impregnating her. The de facto complainant, the victim's mother, had complained that the accused, who was working as a Master in a Mess, had sexual intercourse with her daughter on the false promise of marriage, as a result of which, the victim became pregnant.
On the basis of the mother's complaint, a case was registered and charge sheet was filed for offences under Sections 506 (i) IPC, Section 5(1), Section 5(j) (ii), Section 5(n), and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
During the pendency of the trial, the accused submitted an application under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking direction to the police to conduct a DNA test. The DNA test was conducted as per the court order, and the Forensic Sciences Department gave its opinion that the accused was excluded from being the father of the male child born to the victim. Following this, the accused filed an application for discharge, which came to be dismissed.
The present revision petition was filed against the order dismissing the discharge petition.
The petitioner argued that the DNA report deserved to be accepted unless it was absolutely dented and that the trial judge had failed to consider that the DNA evidence was a predominant forensic technique for identifying criminals. He argued that the main case of the prosecution was that the petitioner had impregnated the victim, which was disproved by the DNA report. Thus, he argued that the very foundation of the prosecution's case stumbled, and there was no scope for proceeding further.
On the other hand, the Government Advocate argued that the negative DNA report by itself was not a ground to discharge the accused, as the victim girl herself had implicated the accused as the person who had committed penetrative sexual assault on her thrice. He pointed out that there were other materials sufficient to proceed with the trial. It was also submitted that the testimony of the victim itself was sufficient to trigger the presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act and once the foundation of prosecution case had been laid by legally admissible evidence, it was upon the accused to establish that he had not committed the offence.
The court noted that the prosecution case had two aspect – first, the commission of penetrative sexual assault and second, the pregnancy of the victim girl. The court added that when the DNA report contradicted the pregnancy claim, it was shocking that the prosecution did not seek for further investigation to identify the individual responsible for the pregnancy.
Considering the facts of the case and the manner in which the investigation was conducted, the court invoked its power under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the chargesheet filed by the police.
The court then directed the Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District to nominate a police officer in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and directed the DSP so nominated to reinvestigate the case and file a final report within 3 months.
Noting that no child should be bastardised, the court also directed the investigating officer to take steps to conduct DNA test on suspected accused without arresting him and to proceed as per law, if the test was positive.
The court also made it clear that the petitioner was not exonerated from the case and asked the IO to investigate into the petitioner's involvement in the case.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. G. Karuppasamy Pandian for Mr. A. Purantharadhas
Counsel for Respondents: Mrs. M. Aasha Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Case Title: XXX v. The Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 222