A DNA report proved only through the investigating officer, without the expert who conducted the analysis stepping into the witness box, cannot sustain a conviction, the Gujarat High Court has held, refusing to interfere with the acquittal of a man accused under the POCSO Act after the minor victim turned hostile.
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court has dismissed at the admission stage an appeal by the State against the acquittal of a man charged under Sections 64(2)(m) and 89 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, holding that the only incriminating material, a DNA profiling report, had not been proved in accordance with law [State of Gujarat v. Accused].
A Division Bench of Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R.T. Vachhani found no perversity in the trial court’s judgment and held that the view taken was a reasonable and possible one.
Background of the case
According to the prosecution, the accused was in a relationship with the victim, then aged about 17 years and 10 months, for around two years, during which he repeatedly subjected her to sexual intercourse, leading to a pregnancy that ended in a miscarriage after he allegedly gave her medicine. On March 24, 2025, she was taken to a local health centre with heavy bleeding, where she disclosed the relationship. Her father lodged an FIR on March 26, 2025 in Dahod district. After investigation, which included medical examination, DNA sampling and the recording of the victim’s statement before a Magistrate under Section 183 of the BNSS, a charge sheet was filed.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod acquitted the accused on December 30, 2025, finding that the victim had not supported the prosecution and that there was no acceptable evidence to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The State appealed under Section 419 of the BNSS.
The State’s case
Additional Public Prosecutor L.B. Dabhi argued that a victim turning hostile does not erase the medical evidence of sexual intercourse, that the consent of a minor is no consent in law, and that the trial court wrongly ignored the DNA analysis report, which he said pointed unerringly to the accused. It was the court’s duty, he contended, to independently scrutinise the scientific evidence even where the victim resiles.
DNA report not proved
Reiterating that an appellate court may interfere with an acquittal only for compelling reasons or perversity, since an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence, the Bench noted that the victim’s age was not in dispute. It found that while she admitted a relationship with the accused, she denied any physical relationship, the pregnancy and the miscarriage at his instance, and did not accept the contents of her statement before the Magistrate. She was declared hostile.
Turning to the DNA report, the Court noted that the prosecution had not examined the person who conducted the profiling and had exhibited the report through the investigating officer. Relying on Rahul v. State of Delhi, (2023) 1 SCC 83, it held:
“It is settled position of law that DNA Profiling Report is inadmissible in evidence if the Scientific Expert who conducted the examination is not produced and examined by the prosecution in court. Mere exhibition of the report through the Investigating Officer is insufficient, as the reliability of the technics applied and the integrity of the findings must be established through expert testimony.”
With the scientific evidence not proved, the Court found nothing else on record connecting the accused to the offence, and observed:
“Thus, merely the accused and victim had an affair, does not further prove that the victim got pregnant on account of repeated sexual intercourse committed upon the victim by the accused.”
Holding that the trial court had rightly found the prosecution unable to establish repeated penetrative sexual assault and the alleged miscarriage, and in the absence of substantial and compelling reasons, the Bench dismissed the appeal at the admission stage.
Why the ruling matters
The judgment illustrates how a procedural gap in proving scientific evidence can decide a sexual offence prosecution once the victim turns hostile. A DNA report is expert opinion, and unless the analyst is examined and made available for cross-examination, the court has no means of testing the methods used or the chain behind the result. Prosecutors relying on forensic evidence in such cases are therefore expected to call the expert, rather than tendering the report through the investigating officer.
Case Title: State of Gujarat v. Accused
Case Number: R/Criminal Appeal (Against Acquittal) No. 1231 of 2026
Bench: Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R.T. Vachhani, Gujarat High Court
Date of Judgment: September 24, 2026
Appearance: L.B. Dabhi, APP for the State
If you know of a child in danger or in need of care and protection, call CHILDLINE at 1098.