Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Scientific Evidence, Denies Bail in Minor Rape Case
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has delivered a significant ruling by denying bail to a man accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl, emphasizing that DNA evidence holds precedence over contradictory statements from the survivor. Justice Rakesh Kainthla presided over the bail plea, where the court noted that while the minor victim stated she was assaulted by an unknown person, scientific proof established the petitioner as the biological father of her child.
Court's Rationale: DNA Report as Conclusive Evidence
In its detailed order, the court highlighted that the mere fact that the victim did not support the prosecution's case is insufficient for acquittal when prima facie scientific evidence confirms paternity. The DNA analysis report explicitly identified the petitioner as the biological father and the minor as the biological mother of the baby born from the assault.
Key findings from the court proceedings include:
- The survivor's school records indicate her birth year as 2007, confirming she was a minor at the time of the incident.
- The petitioner faces charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
- The nature of the offence and the severity of potential punishment were cited as grounds for denying bail.
Arguments Presented by Both Sides
Advocate Bhupinder Singh Ahuja, representing the petitioner, argued that the allegations were false, pointing to the survivor's statement exonerating his client. He emphasized that the investigation is complete and no purpose would be served by continued detention, adding that his client's family is suffering due to his incarceration.
In contrast, Additional Advocate General Lokender Kutlehria, for the state, asserted that the minor was sexually assaulted by the accused, leading to pregnancy and childbirth. He reinforced that DNA analysis prima facie shows the accused fathered the child, constituting a heinous offence under POCSO Act.
Background of the Case
The prosecution alleged that the accused called the minor survivor to his home, where the sexual assault occurred. In April 2025, the girl complained of stomach pain and was taken to a hospital, where she was found to be pregnant. She later delivered a child in the hospital.
- Following this, police registered an FIR, investigated the matter, and filed a chargesheet in July 2025.
- The DNA report confirmed the survivor as the biological mother and the petitioner as the biological father.
- In December 2025, the minor's statement was recorded, where she claimed an unknown person, not the accused, assaulted her.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's reliance on scientific evidence in cases involving minors, even when survivor statements may be inconsistent, ensuring that justice is served in accordance with legal provisions.
