DNA Proof of Paternity Alone Insufficient to Overturn Acquittal: Delhi HC Reaffirms Narrow Scope of Appeal Against Acquittal

Headnote

The Delhi High Court dismissed a prosecutrix's appeal against acquittal of the accused on charges under Sections 328/376(2)(n)/377/506/509 IPC, despite DNA evidence establishing the accused as father of the child born to the prosecutrix. Applying the Supreme Court's principles in Tulasareddi v. State of Karnataka on appellate interference with acquittals, the Court held that the Trial Court's view — based on material inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's testimony regarding intoxication, consciousness, pregnancy disclosure, and lack of corroboration for allied charges — was a reasonably possible view not shown to be perverse or manifestly illegal, and therefore not liable to be disturbed.

Background

1. The prosecutrix alleged that the accused, known to her family, established physical relations with her from 2017 through threats, inducements and, on one occasion, an intoxicating substance, resulting in her pregnancy and birth of a child in June 2019; a DNA report confirmed the accused as the biological father.
2. FIR No. 138/2021 was registered on 17.03.2021 (nearly four years after the first alleged incident) under Sections 376/377/506 IPC, later expanded by chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet to include Sections 328 and 509 IPC.
3. At trial, the accused admitted physical relations but claimed the relationship was consensual and within the knowledge of the prosecutrix's husband; the Trial Court, by judgment dated 07.10.2024, acquitted the accused of all charges, citing delay in FIR registration, inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecutrix and her husband, and successful rebuttal of the Section 114A Evidence Act presumption.
4. The prosecutrix's appeal contended the Trial Court erred in discarding her testimony on minor contradictions, ignored corroboration from the DNA report and her husband's suspicion, and wrongly credited the accused's unsubstantiated consent defence.

Court's Observations

1. Applying the Supreme Court's principles in Tulasareddi v. State of Karnataka, an acquittal can be reversed only where the Trial Court's view is not a reasonably possible one, is perverse, or reflects misreading of material evidence — mere possibility of another view does not suffice.
2. The DNA report established paternity and the fact of intercourse but did not, by itself, establish absence of consent; the Section 114A presumption does not immunise the prosecutrix's testimony from judicial scrutiny of foundational facts.
3. Material inconsistencies were noted across successive versions regarding the manner of administering the intoxicant, the prosecutrix's state of consciousness during the first incident, the timeline and circumstances of the husband's discovery of the pregnancy, and the making of the 100-number police call.
4. Allegations of threats through nude photographs/videos (Sections 506/509 IPC) received no corroboration despite forensic examination of the accused's phone, and the Section 328 IPC charge required proof of intentional administration of an intoxicant, which the delayed, uncorroborated account failed to establish.
5. The principle that sole testimony of a prosecutrix can sustain conviction applies only where such testimony is reliable and inspires confidence; it does not dispense with judicial assessment of contradictions, which here were cumulative and went to circumstances integral to the prosecution's narrative.
6. The strengthened presumption of innocence following acquittal operates in the accused's favour, and the gravity of the accusation cannot substitute for the requisite standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Legal Provisions Discussed

1. Sections 328, 376(2)(n), 377, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (appeal against acquittal).
3. Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (presumption as to absence of consent).
4. Precedents applied: Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 89; State of H.P. v. Sanjay Kumar @ Sunny, (2017) 2 SCC 51; Phool Singh v. State of M.P., (2022) 2 SCC 74.

Case Details

Court Name

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Case Number

CRL.A. 320/2026 & CRL.M.A. 10175/2026

Case / Party Name

Prosecutrix ("KXXXXX") v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Court

High Court of Delhi (Single Judge)

Coram / Judges

Hon'ble Ms. Justice Madhu Jain

Date of Decision

03.09.2026