The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction and 12-year rigorous imprisonment sentence of a 24-year-old man for raping a 60-year-old woman in her jhuggi. The Court ruled that the absence of the electropherogram report did not weaken the DNA evidence, which firmly linked the accused to the crime.
Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed the appeal filed by the convict, who challenged his conviction under Section 376 of the IPC. He argued that without the electropherogram, the DNA report lacked reliability. However, the Court strongly disagreed.
“The DNA report from the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory clearly established a match between the appellant's DNA and the DNA collected from the prosecutrix’s clothes and samples. No forensic expert was brought to challenge these findings, nor was any material placed to prove the DNA report incomplete due to the absence of an electropherogram,” the Court noted.
Read Also:- Madras High Court Urges Centre to Release RTE Funds to Tamil Nadu Without Linking to NEP
The Court further observed that the trial court had specifically questioned the forensic expert about the electropherogram. The expert explained that it was a highly technical document, meant for trained professionals, and that the Allelic Data Report—which was submitted—effectively captured its contents.
“The Allelic Data Report is derived from the electropherogram and is the accessible, interpretable version for courts. The evidence, thus, remains valid and credible,” the Court added.
Read Also:- Karnataka High Court Hears RCB Marketing Head’s Plea Challenging Arrest in Bengaluru Stampede Case
The incident occurred on the night of June 10, 2017. The prosecutrix, alone in her jhuggi as her son was away, was allegedly assaulted by the appellant, who covered her mouth and raped her. Despite raising an alarm, no one responded. She later informed her son-in-law, who called the police. The accused was arrested the same day.
In his defense, the appellant claimed false implication, pointing to a past case involving the prosecutrix’s son and himself. He also argued inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s statements and the absence of independent witnesses.
The High Court admitted that some discrepancies were found during cross-examination—such as the time of the incident, the absence of a door in the jhuggi, and not naming the accused in the initial FIR.
“Such minor inconsistencies are natural, especially from a traumatised witness recalling events under stress. They do not affect the core allegation of sexual assault,” the Court clarified.
The Court stressed that rape survivors’ testimonies must not be judged with a hyper-technical approach. The victim’s statements remained consistent at all crucial stages—police complaint, judicial statement, and trial deposition.
Regarding the absence of public witnesses, the Court said:
“It is well-settled that such crimes often occur in secluded areas, especially at night. Law does not require public witnesses in every case, particularly in private spaces like a jhuggi.”
The forensic evidence played a key role. The DNA report linked the accused’s profile to vaginal samples, the victim’s clothes, and his own clothing. The Court found no flaws in the expert’s explanation.
Dismissing the plea to reduce the sentence, the Court stated:
“The crime involved rape of an elderly woman, committed by a young man in the dead of night. The punishment is just and proportionate.”
Thus, the appeal was rejected, and the conviction and 12-year sentence were upheld.
Case Title: Sanjay @ Sanju v. State
Case No.: CRL.A. 575/2018
Appearance: Adit S. Pujari (DHCLSC), Bhavesh Seth, Mantika Vohra for Appellant; Mukesh Kumar, APP with SI Vinod Bhati for State.
