Abdul Hamid v. State of Assam, 2025

The prosecution alleged that the appellant raped a minor girl employed as a domestic help after forcing her to watch pornographic material.

The victim had claimed that the appellant was responsible for her pregnancy.

The victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC alleged penetrative sexual assault, whereas her trial deposition contained contradictions regarding the alleged acts.

A DNA test conclusively established that the appellant was not the biological father of the child born to the prosecutrix.

Whether the conviction could rest solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix?

Whether the DNA evidence negated the basis of the victim’s allegations?

Whether the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act could be invoked without establishing foundational facts?

Whether the discrepancies between the Section 164 CrPC statement and trial deposition affected the credibility of the victim?

The Court noted that the testimony of the victim had significant discrepancies between her Section 164 CrPC statement and her trial deposition.

It observed that the DNA report conclusively ruled out the appellant as the biological father, thereby removing the foundation of the prosecution case.

The Court held that conviction cannot rest solely on a Section 164 statement, which can only be used for contradiction or corroboration.

It emphasized that while conviction can be based solely on a prosecutrix’s testimony, it is only permissible when the testimony is credible and inspires confidence.

The Court stated that the victim’s evidence was shown to be false and that she appeared to have been tutored to make a false case.

On the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, the Court clarified that it arises only after the prosecution proves foundational facts. In the present case, the failure to establish such facts coupled with the DNA evidence, disentitled the prosecution from invoking the presumption.

The judgment underscores the principle that scientific evidence, such as DNA tests, can outweigh testimonial evidence when it conclusively contradicts key allegations.

It clarifies that Section 29 POCSO presumptions are contingent upon establishing foundational facts.

The Court emphasized the importance of credibility of the prosecutrix, noting that discrepancies and false statements undermine the safety of a conviction.

The case demonstrates the need for careful assessment of scientific evidence alongside testimonial evidence to ensure justice is served.