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 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.