Court Rejects Juvenility Claim and Declines Bail After DNA Linked Accused to Victim

A bench of Hon'ble Ms. Justice Anu Malhotra heard a bail application filed by the accused in FIR No. 487/2017 arising out of PS Burari, challenging his continued custody in offences under Sections 366, 354, 354A, 354B, 354C, 376, 506, 392, 411, 323, 341 IPC and Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner sought bail on grounds of false implication, contradictions in the prosecution case and a claim that he was a juvenile at the time of the alleged offence; the State opposed bail and produced school records and DNA results.

Decision Summary The High Court declined the bail application. The Court found that the claim of juvenility failed on the material on record and that forensic evidence linked the accused to the sexual assault. The Court emphasised the credibility of official school records, treated them as raising a presumption under Section 35 of the Evidence Act and held that an ossification test was unnecessary in the circumstances. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The date of birth of the applicant in the instant case is thus, held to be 30.10.1998 and the date of the alleged commission of the offence in the instant case being 02.09.2017 and thus, the claim of juvenility raised in the instant case is rejected as there is no reason to disbelieve the records produced by the Chhotu Ram Public School, Senior Secondary Bakhtawarpur, Delhi where the applicant studied, in as much as they have been maintained in the ordinary course of business to which there is a presumption raised of these being correct in terms of Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.” The Court also noted the forensic conclusion that “DNA profiling (STR analysis) performed on the source of exhibits … is sufficient to conclude that DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit ‘3’ (Blood sample of accused) is similar with the DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit … (semen stains from microslides/swabs of victim)”, and treated this as weighing against grant of bail. Taking the prosecutrix’s consistent account of assault and the DNA results together, the Court found no ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Background The prosecution alleged that on 02.09.2017 the minor prosecutrix (then aged 17) and a friend were intercepted while riding a scooty, taken to a secluded place and the prosecutrix was sexually assaulted; she lodged an FIR and later deposed before the court. The petitioner remained in custody since 03.09.2017. The accused contended that he was under 18 on the date of the offence, relying on a progress report showing DOB as 30.10.1999 and urged application of Juvenile Justice rules. The State produced a status report and a letter from the Principal of Chhotu Ram Public School stating the progress report contained a “clerical mistake” and that the admission form, undertaking by the guardian, admission/withdrawal register and school leaving certificate recorded the date of birth as 30.10.1998. The Court directed verification by police and allowed the petitioner to place a municipal birth certificate on record; the petitioner’s father, however, filed an affidavit saying the family was illiterate and the certificate could not be earlier produced because the accused was in custody.

The Court examined statutory procedure under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and followed binding principles in recent precedents, including the Supreme Court’s guidance in Rishipal Singh Solanki on the manner of determining juvenility and the weight to be given to school and official records. The trial record included the prosecutrix’s statements under Section 164 CrPC and testimony in court, medical examination reports (MLC/Lady Hardinge Hospital noted “no marks of injury, hymen intact”), and forensic reports. The Forensic Science Laboratory’s STR/DNA report matched semen stains and vaginal washings to the accused’s blood sample and linked other garments to the profiles. The prosecutrix gave evidence and opposed bail. After assessing documentary and forensic material, the Court concluded the juvenility plea was not sustainable and, without commenting on trial merits, refused bail. No interim liberty was granted.

Case Details: Case No.: BAIL APPLN. 3215/2021 Case Title: Vishal Tyagi v. State Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Priya Kumari; Mr. Shubham Nagpal; Mr. K.S. Yadav, Advocates For the Respondent(s): Ms. Asha Tiwari, APP for State with SI Satender Singh, PS Burari