BailNow.in News Snacks

Negative DNA Match Not a Clean Chit: MP High Court Denies Bail, Orders Special Probe

Court Rules DNA Report Only Excludes Paternity, Not Sexual Assault

Special Police Team Directed to Identify Real Offender and Biological Father

By Legal Reporter

New Delhi: October 07, 2026:

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has denied bail to Raju Jatav, accused of raping a minor, despite a negative DNA test and the victim turning hostile. The court emphasized that a negative DNA match only rules out paternity, not rape, and ordered a special police probe to identify the actual perpetrator and biological father of the foetus.

Case Background

• Accused: Raju Jatav, arrested for allegedly raping a 16-year-old girl in Chhatarpur district.
• Victim’s Allegation: Initially stated Jatav forcibly raped her at Bageshwar Dham.
• Medical Findings: Girl was found pregnant; foetus preserved for forensic testing.
• DNA Report: Forensic Science Laboratory concluded Jatav was not the biological father.
• Trial Twist: Victim later turned hostile, testifying that Jatav had not raped her.

Court’s Observations

• Judge: Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari, Jabalpur Bench.
• Key Point: DNA report rules out paternity but confirms pregnancy through sexual relations.
• Victim’s Age: 16 years, legally a minor, making any sexual act unlawful.
• Earlier Statements: Victim had categorically alleged rape by Jatav in statements under BNSS Sections 180 and 183 (equivalent to CrPC 161 and 164).
• Recovery Circumstance: Victim was recovered at the instance of Jatav’s wife, strengthening suspicion.

Court’s Decision

• Bail application dismissed under Section 483 BNSS (equivalent to Section 439 CrPC).
• Court stressed seriousness of allegations despite hostile testimony.
• Ordered Superintendent of Police, Chhatarpur to form a special team to:
  • Identify who sexually assaulted the minor.
  • Determine biological father of the foetus.
  • Submit findings within two months.

Implications

• Legal Principle: A negative DNA test does not absolve an accused of rape charges.
• Victim Protection: Court prioritizes safeguarding minors even when testimony changes.
• Investigative Accountability: Special probe ensures justice is not derailed by hostile witnesses.
• Broader Impact: Reinforces judiciary’s stance that sexual assault cases require deeper investigation beyond forensic paternity tests.

FAQs

Q1: Why was bail denied despite a negative DNA test?

Because DNA only rules out paternity, not rape. The victim’s pregnancy confirmed sexual assault occurred.

Q2: What role did the victim’s hostile testimony play?

Though she denied Jatav’s involvement at trial, her earlier statements and circumstances weighed against him.

Q3: What is the significance of the victim’s age?

At 16, she is legally a minor, making any sexual act unlawful regardless of consent.

Q4: What happens next?

A special police team will investigate and identify the actual perpetrator and biological father within two months.

Q5: Does this case set a precedent?

Yes. It clarifies that forensic paternity reports cannot alone determine innocence in rape cases.