Latest JudgementCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Ram Kuber v. State, 2026

It reinforces the principle that testimonial and circumstantial evidence is crucial in sexual offences against children.

Delhi High Court·12 January 2026

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Court

Delhi High Court

Date of Decision

12 January 2026

Judges

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

The appellant repeatedly raped a 13-year-old minor over seven days.
He was caught by the maternal grandmother of the victim, who witnessed the offence.
The victim alleged that the accused used a condom, which explained the absence of DNA evidence.
Medical examination of the victim was delayed due to late reporting, leading to an inconclusive FSL report.
The trial court convicted the accused, sentencing him to 12 years rigorous imprisonment for offences under IPC Sections 376(2) and 506(II), and POCSO Sections 5(1) and 6.
The appellant appealed against conviction, citing absence of DNA match as a key ground.
The Delhi High Court examined the circumstances explaining the absence of DNA evidence, including condom use and delay in medical examination.

Whether the absence of DNA matching in a rape case is fatal to the prosecution when surrounding circumstances reasonably explain such absence?
Whether the use of a condom by the accused and delay in medical examination can justify the inconclusive DNA results without discrediting the prosecution case?
Whether the consistent and credible testimony of a minor victim can be relied upon even if scientific evidence is inconclusive?
Whether conviction under IPC Sections 376(2)/506(II) and POCSO Act Sections 5(1)/6 can be upheld based on circumstantial and testimonial evidence despite absence of matching DNA?
Whether delay in reporting and medical examination affects the reliability of forensic evidence in child sexual abuse cases?

Conviction of appellant under IPC Sections 376(2)/506(II) and POCSO Sections 5(1)/6 is upheld.
Absence of DNA match is not fatal where circumstances provide explanation.
Credible, consistent testimony of minor victim can substantiate prosecution case.
Circumstantial and testimonial evidence together are sufficient to prove guilt.

Reinforces the principle that testimonial and circumstantial evidence is crucial in sexual offences against children.
Emphasizes that scientific evidence is supportive but not indispensable.
Recognizes that delays and use of protection (e.g., condom) can affect forensic results without weakening prosecution case.
Strengthens child protection laws under POCSO Act, ensuring conviction even when DNA is inconclusive.
Upholds the importance of holistic evaluation of evidence in cases of minor victims.