Uncorroborated Expert Evidence Not Enough To Convict When Key Witnesses Turn Hostile: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Acquittal In POCSO Case

Justice Arun Monga noted that the prosecution "merely but heavily, relied on scientific evidence such as DNA and forensic reports". Referring to Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act or Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Ashiniyam, 2023 the court said that "forensic reports are only corroborative, not conclusive evidence".

The court further said that that the "law, no doubt, enables trial court to rely on expert opinions, however, such opinions are only meant to assist the court and are not binding".

The court said, "In modern criminal trials, expert evidence, including DNA tests, forensic reports, and digital evidence, plays a crucial role. But the credibility, methodology, and corroboration of expert evidence determine its weight. Court has the discretion to accept or reject expert opinions based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Though the experts provide opinions based on their specialized knowledge, but their testimony is not conclusive. Expert evidence per se is merely corroborative and it must be supported by other forms of admissible evidence. Such opinions are only advisory and should be evaluated alongside other evidence".

“Thus, the expert evidence alone is not sufficient for conviction, unless corroborated by other evidence. To canvass and accept otherwise would be fraught with the danger of, in given cases, experts being influenced by either the party engaging them and/or other extraneous considerations viz. media trail etc...As an upshot, if the victim, complainant, or key witnesses turn hostile or fail to support the prosecution's case, conviction cannot be based solely on scientific evidence. Eyewitness accounts and other forms of direct evidence remain crucial in establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In light thereof, conviction cannot rest solely on scientific evidence without supporting testimonies” it further added. 

The Court was hearing the State's appeal against the trial court's order which acquitted the accused booked for sexually assaulting a minor boy.

The prosecution argued that even though the child, and his parents had turned hostile, the FSL and DNA reports, wherein the blood samples of the accused and the blood found on the victim's pyjamas matched, substantiated charges against the accused.

After hearing the contentions and perusing the material on record, the Court highlighted that with the victim and his parents turning hostile, the prosecution lacked any direct evidence to establish the offence and was only relying on the scientific evidence which were only corroborative and not conclusive evidence.

Finding no grounds to interfere the high court said that there was no irregularity in procedure nor any was error pointed out in the appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The court said that minor boy and his parents turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's version of events. Without their testimony, the prosecution lacked "direct evidence to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt". 

Hence, it was opined that there was insufficient evidence to convict the accused. It was held that the burden of proof was on the prosecution, and the Courts must err on the side of caution to avoid convicting an innocent.

Accordingly, the State's appeal was dismissed.

Title: State of Rajasthan v X

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 64

Click Here To Read/Download Order