Aurangabad, October 13 - In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) on Monday acquitted a 30-year-old farmer from Beed district who had been serving a 10-year sentence for alleged sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Justice Neeraj P. Dhote, while setting aside the conviction, pointed out "serious procedural lapses" in the collection and handling of DNA samples and found the victim’s statements "inconsistent and unreliable."
Ganesh Shahaji Parkale, a resident of Pimpri Ghumari village, had been convicted in 2022 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, for offences under Sections 376(2)(n) of the IPC and Sections 4, 6, and 8 of the POCSO Act.
Background
The case dates back to March 2019, when the father of a 12th-standard student from Burhannagar, Ahmednagar, reported her missing. Five months later, the girl was found with Parkale. The prosecution claimed that Parkale had taken the girl to various locations and established sexual relations with her. Subsequent medical reports confirmed her pregnancy, which was later terminated at a government hospital.
The trial court had relied heavily on the DNA test report linking Parkale to the aborted foetus and the girl’s initial statements to the police. It sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years.
During appeal, Parkale's lawyer, Mr. Ajit Chormal, argued that the DNA samples were mishandled, the chain of custody was incomplete, and the victim’s testimony was filled with contradictions.
"There was no conclusive proof that the samples sent for DNA testing were collected and preserved according to law," he contended.
Court's Observations
Justice Dhote's 40-page judgment meticulously analyzed the testimonies of 18 witnesses, including medical officers and investigating officials. The Court noted that while the victim was legally a minor, her conduct suggested "mature understanding" and that she had voluntarily stayed with the accused for months without complaint.
On the DNA evidence, the Court took a firm stand.
"The complete chain of handling the samples for DNA is not established. There are missing links from drawing of samples to the final report," the judge observed. He emphasized that without proof of a proper chain of custody, the DNA report "cannot be accepted as conclusive."
The bench further cited recent Supreme Court rulings, including Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025) and Nivrutti Hange v. State of Maharashtra (2024), highlighting the need for strict adherence to forensic protocols.
"DNA science is based on probability, not infallibility," Justice Dhote remarked, quoting established jurisprudence.
The Court also noted inconsistencies in the victim's statements. In her testimony, she admitted that she had not complained of any forceful act during her medical examination and had lived with the accused like a married couple.
"Her testimony suffers from serious omissions and improvements," the bench said, adding that her account did not meet the threshold of a ‘sterling witness’ as required under POCSO law.
Even the medical records weakened the prosecution’s case - doctors who examined the victim reported no signs of sexual assault or genital injury.
Decision
Finding the prosecution’s case riddled with procedural and evidentiary gaps, the High Court quashed the conviction and ordered Parkale’s immediate release.
"The presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act does not arise when the victim’s testimony is unreliable and uncorroborated," Justice Dhote held.
In his concluding order, the judge directed that the fine, if paid, be refunded and that the accused be released forthwith unless required in another case. The Court also appreciated the assistance of advocate R.C. Bora, who represented the victim, and fixed his legal aid remuneration at ₹10,000.
Case Title: Ganesh Shahaji Parkale vs The State of Maharashtra and Another
Case Type & Number: Criminal Appeal No. 821 of 2022
Counsel Appearances:
- For Appellant: Mr. Ajit B. Chormal, Advocate
- For State (Respondent No. 1): Mr. B. B. Bhise, APP
- For Victim (Respondent No. 2): Mr. R. C. Bora, Advocate (appointed through Legal Services)
