In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has clarified that while a DNA report may confirm paternity, it cannot be used as evidence to prove the absence of consent in a rape case.

Discharging a man accused of rape, Justice Amit Mahajan stated:

“…the DNA report merely proves paternity—it does not and cannot, by itself, establish the absence of consent. It is trite law that the offence under Section 376 of the IPC hinges on the absence of consent. Mere proof of sexual relations, even if resulting in pregnancy, is insufficient to prove rape unless it is also shown that the act was non-consensual.”

Read also: Driving at High Speed Alone Does Not Prove Rash and Negligent Driving: Delhi High Court

The court’s decision came after the prosecution relied heavily on the DNA report, which confirmed that the accused was the biological father of the child born to the complainant.

Case Background

The case involved a man who challenged his conviction by a trial court under Sections 376(2)(n) (repeated rape) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Along with disputing his conviction, he also appealed against his ten-year rigorous imprisonment sentence.

According to the victim’s allegations, the accused repeatedly sexually assaulted her after inviting her to his house under the pretense of playing the board game Ludo. She later discovered she was pregnant.

Read also: Delhi High Court Upholds Charges Against Club Owners Accused of Serving Hookah, Liquor to Minors

However, the accused countered these claims, arguing that the relationship was consensual and that the case was filed with ulterior motives to extort money from him.

Discharging the accused, the court noted several key points:

• Unexplained Delay in Filing the Case: The prosecution failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the complaint.
• Lack of Medical Evidence: No medical proof was presented to establish that force or coercion was involved.
• Victim’s Continued Visits: By her own admission, the complainant continued visiting the accused’s house for months and even developed affectionate feelings for him.
• Silence Until Pregnancy Was Discovered: The court observed that the FIR was filed only after the victim learned about her pregnancy.

Read also: Courts Must Support Minor Victims of Sexual Assault When Parents Fail: Delhi High Court

Justice Amit Mahajan further noted:

“The victim’s conduct of proceeding against the accused only after discovering her pregnancy strongly suggests that the FIR was not a spontaneous or genuine complaint of rape, but rather a reaction to the perceived social stigma of an out-of-wedlock pregnancy.”

The court pointed out that the complainant had numerous opportunities to report the alleged acts earlier but remained silent. Justice Mahajan stated:

“Viewed cumulatively, these facts lend credence to the possibility that the FIR was a reaction to social pressure and that the nature of the relationship was re-cast retrospectively to explain an unwanted pregnancy.”

Additionally, the judge emphasized that during earlier statements, the complainant only mentioned that the accused had asked her to keep quiet. It was only at a much later stage—during her deposition before the trial court—that she introduced the claim that he had also threatened to kill her family.

“No explanation was offered for this belated assertion. This embellishment casts serious doubt on the veracity of the claim, especially when viewed in conjunction with her otherwise consistent conduct of continuing to visit the appellant’s house and showing no visible signs of fear or distress.”

After reviewing all aspects of the case, the Delhi High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the sexual relationship between the complainant and the accused was non-consensual.

The court ruled that since the case hinged on proving the absence of consent, a DNA report alone—while proving paternity—was not enough to establish rape under Section 376 IPC.

With these observations, the High Court discharged the accused from the case, marking an important legal precedent in determining the role of DNA evidence in sexual assault cases.

Title: NATHU v. STATE