The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the State of Haryana’s appeal challenging the acquittal of a man accused of rape and house-trespass, holding that the trial court’s decision was justified in light of inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence and a DNA report that did not match the accused with the semen found on the prosecutrix’s clothing.
- Case Title: State of Haryana v. Yashpal
- Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
- Bench: Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Ramesh Kumari
- Date of Decision: 6 March 2026
- Case Number: CRA-D-772-DB-2014
- Statutory Provisions: Sections 376 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code
- Disposition: State appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld
Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Rape Case
The High Court held that there was no compelling reason to overturn the acquittal recorded by the trial court, particularly when the DNA evidence failed to link the accused to the alleged offence and when material discrepancies existed in the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses.
The bench emphasized that an appellate court must exercise caution before interfering with an acquittal, as the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused stands reinforced after such a verdict.
The ruling came in an appeal filed by the State of Haryana against a judgment dated 9 May 2013 by the trial court that acquitted the accused, Yashpal, of charges under Sections 376 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code.
Background
According to the prosecution case, the alleged incident occurred on the evening of 15 April 2012 in District Rewari. The prosecutrix stated that she was alone at home around 8–8:30 PM when her family members had gone to the fields.
During that time, the accused allegedly entered the house and forcibly took her to a nearby bathroom belonging to a villager named Rampat. It was alleged that he gagged her mouth and committed rape.
The complaint further stated that when the prosecutrix’s mother returned from the fields and noticed her daughter missing, she began searching for her and eventually found the accused in the bathroom with her daughter.
The accused allegedly pushed the mother and fled from the spot, after which the victim raised an alarm and narrated the incident to her family members.
An application was subsequently submitted to the police, leading to the registration of an FIR at Police Station Kosli under Sections 376 and 452 of the IPC.
The prosecutrix was medically examined, and samples including clothing and vaginal swabs were collected and sent for forensic examination.
Medical Examination and Forensic Evidence
The prosecutrix underwent medico-legal examination shortly after the alleged incident. The examining doctor noted a contusion on the back measuring approximately 15 cm by 5 cm. The doctor also recorded that the hymen was ruptured and that white discharge was present, stating that the
“possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out.”
The accused was also medically examined, and the doctor opined that there was nothing to suggest that he was incapable of sexual intercourse.
Forensic examination revealed that human semen was detected on the salwar of the prosecutrix and on the underwear of the accused.
However, no semen was detected on the vaginal swabs collected during the medical examination. Importantly, the prosecution had not initially collected a blood sample from the accused to compare the semen samples.
Subsequently, the accused himself applied before the court for DNA profiling. Pursuant to that application, his blood sample was collected and sent for analysis.
The DNA report dated 1 March 2013 concluded that the allelic pattern of the semen detected on the salwar of the prosecutrix did not match the DNA profile of the accused’s blood sample.
Defence Evidence and Plea of Alibi
During the trial, the accused denied all allegations and claimed that he had been falsely implicated.
In support of his defence, three witnesses were examined.
One defence witness, the owner of the bathroom where the alleged assault was said to have taken place, testified that he had been present in the adjoining plot between 7:30 PM and 9:00 PM on the date of the incident and that no such occurrence took place there.
Another defence witness produced the attendance register from the office of the Delhi Armed Police, showing that the accused was on duty on the relevant date. It was also stated that during the period of the Delhi Municipal Corporation elections in April 2012, leave for police personnel had been suspended.
A third defence witness, a fellow police constable, testified that both he and the accused were on reserve duty at the Kingsway Camp office in Delhi and remained together for most of the day.
Trial Court Acquittal and State’s Appeal
After evaluating the evidence, the trial court acquitted the accused of all charges.
The State of Haryana subsequently filed an appeal before the High Court, arguing that the trial court had erred in appreciating the evidence. The prosecution contended that the testimonies of the prosecutrix and her mother clearly established the offence and that the medical evidence supported the allegation of sexual assault.
The State further argued that the trial court had been unduly influenced by the DNA report and had overlooked other corroborative evidence.
High Court on Scope of Appeals Against Acquittal
Before examining the facts, the High Court reiterated the settled legal principles governing appellate interference with acquittal orders.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, the bench observed that while appellate courts possess the power to re-appreciate evidence, interference with an acquittal must be approached with caution.
The Court noted that once an accused has been acquitted, a “double presumption” of innocence operates in his favour, first, the general presumption of innocence in criminal law, and second, the reinforcement of that presumption by the trial court’s acquittal.
The judgment further emphasized that if two reasonable views are possible based on the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the trial court’s decision.
DNA Evidence Considered Reliable
A key factor in the High Court’s analysis was the DNA profiling conducted during the proceedings.
The Court observed that the semen detected on the salwar of the prosecutrix did not match the DNA profile of the accused’s blood sample. Referring to Supreme Court jurisprudence on the evidentiary value of DNA profiling, the bench noted that such scientific evidence is considered valid and reliable when properly obtained.
Since the integrity of the samples was not questioned, the Court held that the trial court had rightly relied upon the DNA report as one of the reasons supporting the acquittal.
Contradictions in Prosecution Testimony
Apart from the DNA evidence, the High Court highlighted several discrepancies in the prosecution’s case.
One inconsistency related to the alleged place of occurrence. In her complaint and testimony before the court, the prosecutrix stated that the assault occurred in Rampat’s bathroom.
However, the medical officer testified that the prosecutrix had informed her that the incident took place at her own house.
The Court noted that these conflicting versions regarding the location of the incident created serious doubts about the prosecution narrative.
Another issue concerned the absence of injuries consistent with the alleged struggle. Although the prosecutrix claimed that the accused gagged her mouth and dragged her to another location, the medical examination revealed no injuries on her face, legs, or other body parts that would indicate such resistance.
Similarly, the prosecutrix had stated that she bit or scratched the accused during the struggle, yet no injury marks were found on the accused during his medical examination.
Testimony of the Mother Also Questioned
The High Court also referred to contradictions in the testimony of the prosecutrix’s mother.
While she stated before the court that she had seen the accused committing the act, her earlier statement to the police indicated that she had only seen the accused emerging from the bathroom. This inconsistency weakened the prosecution’s attempt to corroborate the alleged assault.
Additionally, the Court noted that the houses of the prosecutrix’s relatives surrounded the area where the incident allegedly occurred, making it improbable that the accused could have taken her to a bathroom located 40–45 yards away without being noticed by others.
High Court’s Final Findings
After reviewing the evidence, the bench concluded that the trial court’s decision to acquit the accused was based on a plausible interpretation of the evidence.
The Court held that the DNA report, along with the inconsistencies and improbabilities in the prosecution’s case, justified the benefit of doubt granted to the accused.
Accordingly, the High Court found no illegality or irregularity in the trial court’s judgment.
“The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed,”
the Court declared while affirming the acquittal of the accused.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
