POCSO Gang-Rape Conviction Set Aside: Rajasthan HC DB

Unproved School Records, Broken DNA Custody Chain: Rajasthan High Court Acquits Four in POCSO Gang-Rape Case

Published: 27 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

A Rajasthan High Court Division Bench set aside the conviction of four men sentenced to life imprisonment for gang rape under the IPC and the POCSO Act, and acquitted them (paras 1, 57). It held the FIR hit by Section 162 CrPC because the complainant's first report at a police chowki was never produced, found her minority unproved, and rejected the DNA report because the chain of custody of the samples was not established (paras 19-20, 29, 44).

Key holdings

Non-production of the police chowki record of the first complaint rendered the FIR hit by Section 162 CrPC (paras 14, 19-20).

A mark-sheet date of birth drawn from an unproved school admission entry did not prove minority beyond reasonable doubt (paras 23, 29).

Conflicting handover dates and missing malkhana entries broke the chain of custody, so the DNA report was not relied upon (paras 37-41, 44).

Without medical or reliable scientific corroboration, the complainant’s inconsistent account could not sustain the gang-rape or kidnapping charges (paras 51-52, 55).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

A POCSO Special Court convicted the four appellants under Sections 363, 366, 366A and 376D IPC and Sections 5(g)/6 of the POCSO Act and imposed life imprisonment (para 1). The prosecution case was that they took the complainant, said to be 16, from her home at night in a vehicle and raped her, and that she lodged a written report at the police station the next morning (para 2). The appellants argued that her age was not proved, that the FIR was hit by Section 162 CrPC, that her account was inconsistent and that the custody of the DNA samples was unproved (paras 3-7). The State relied on her matriculation mark-sheet and the DNA report (para 10).

Court's Findings

The complainant first went to a police chowki and narrated the incident there, yet no report, daily diary entry or chowki officer was produced, and the witnesses differed on whether any report was made and when the written report was lodged after family deliberation (paras 13-16, 19). The FIR reached the jurisdictional court almost three months late without explanation (para 17). Applying Allarakha Habib Memon, the Bench held the FIR hit by Section 162 CrPC and found the true genesis suppressed (paras 18-20). Her mark-sheet copied the school admission form, but neither her father, who gave the date, nor any school official was examined; admissibility under Section 35 of the Evidence Act is not proof of contents, so minority was not proved (paras 23, 29). The medical evidence did not corroborate rape (paras 33-34). Conflicting handover dates, missing malkhana entries and an unproved first dispatch broke the chain of custody; following Prakash Nishad and Manoj, the DNA report, which no expert proved, could not be relied on (paras 37-44, 48-50). Her testimony was not of sterling quality, and the kidnapping charges also failed (paras 51-52, 55).

Legal Principle

A date of birth in a school record has probative value only if its underlying basis is proved, as by examining the person who supplied or made the entry; admissibility under Section 35 Evidence Act is not proof. A DNA report cannot be relied on unless the prosecution proves an unbroken chain of custody (paras 23, 29, 44).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

In POCSO and rape trials, the ruling is a reminder that exhibiting a document is not proving it. A matriculation date of birth copied from a school admission form needs the person who supplied or recorded that entry, such as a parent or a school official (paras 23, 29). Each handover of biological samples, from collection to the malkhana to the laboratory, must be documented and proved, or the DNA report falls away (paras 37-44). Where a complainant first approaches a police chowki, its record and staff should be produced (paras 14, 19). The High Court took a similar view of delayed forensic samples in R.S. v. State of Rajasthan, where age rested only on an ossification test.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

Allarakha Habib Memon & Ors. v. State of Gujarat (2024) 9 SCC 546
Applied Discussed at ¶ 5, 18, 19
Where the first complaint to the police is withheld and the daily diary is not produced, the FIR may be treated as a post-investigation document hit by Section 162 CrPC.
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Punati Ramulu 1994 Suppl 1 SCC 590
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 18
An FIR prepared after deliberation, instead of being recorded on receipt of information of a cognizable offence, taints the investigation.
Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024) 8 SCC 149
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 18, 19
Non-production of the police station daily diary entry of the relatives' first visit creates grave doubt about the genuineness of the FIR.

View all precedents (11)

Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. AIR 2022 SC 630
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 4, 24, 29
A public document such as a matriculation certificate may be accepted on age only if it is credible and authentic under Section 35 of the Evidence Act and other provisions.
Birka Shiva v. State of Telangana MANU/SC/0931/2025
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 4, 25, 28, 29
Admissibility of a school birth record under Section 35 is distinct from its probative value, which depends on proof of its authenticity and of the source of the information.
Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit 1988 Supp SCC 604
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 26
A date of birth in a scholar's register has no evidentiary value unless the person who made the entry or gave the date is examined.
Allamelu v. State (2011) 2 SCC 385
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 27
A transfer certificate is of little evidentiary value on age without the material on which the date was recorded.
Prakash Nishad v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2023 SC 2938
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 6, 42, 44
Samples must reach the laboratory promptly and the prosecution must establish the chain of custody, documenting each person who handled them.
Meghraj v. State of Rajasthan and connected matters MANU/RH/1255/2023
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 6, 42
Without a seizure memo of the blood sample and a malkhana entry, an FSL report is doubtful.
Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) 2 SCC 353
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 43, 44
DNA evidence not properly documented, collected, packaged and preserved does not meet the legal and scientific requirements for admissibility.
Irfan alias Bhayu Mevati v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2025 INSC 150 2025 INSC 150
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 49, 50
A DNA report not proved by the experts who prepared it is of doubtful probative value; remand to examine them was not ordered here because the chain of custody itself was unproved.