Sessions Court Holds Continuation of Trial a Futile Exercise Where Chances of Conviction Are Nil
Shivaji Rathore 09-01-2026
Background of the Case
The accused was sent to face trial for alleged commission of sexual offences under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused had sexually exploited the prosecutrix, resulting in the birth of a child. Charges were framed and the prosecution cited 13 witnesses, with the prosecutrix examined as the star witness.
Victim’s Statement Under Section 183 BNSS Clears the Accused:- In her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS, the prosecutrix made the following crucial disclosures: The accused never committed any sexual or wrongful act against her. She never went anywhere with the accused. She had never informed her parents or the police about any wrongdoing by the accused. She categorically stated that the identity of the child’s father cannot be disclosed, as it is her personal matter. The Court recorded that the statement was made voluntarily, read over, and duly admitted by the witness as correct.
DNA Report Completely Excludes Accused as Biological Father:- The Court placed strong reliance on the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) DNA report, which examined the DNA samples of: The prosecutrix, The child born to her, The accused,
The DNA analysis conclusively established that:- The accused is not the biological father of the child. The DNA profiles of the accused and the child did not share alleles, thereby excluding paternity. The Court held that once the accused stands excluded as the biological father, the prosecution story loses its foundation.
Whether Trial Can Be Truncated Midway?
The Court framed a critical legal issue: Whether continuation of trial would serve any useful purpose when the prosecutrix herself has failed to implicate the accused and scientific evidence rules out his involvement. Answering this, the Court held that:-
Continuing the trial would result in wastage of precious judicial time. It would cause unnecessary harassment to the accused and inconvenience to prosecution witnesses. Even if remaining witnesses were examined, there was no possibility of conviction.
Court’s Finding: No Ingredients of POCSO or Section 64 BNS Made Out The Court categorically observed that:- Mere friendship or meetings between the prosecutrix and the accused do not constitute an offence. No material existed to show physical relations attributable to the accused. The prosecutrix never turned hostile and consistently exonerated the accused. When the victim herself fails to connect the accused even remotely with the offence, the accused cannot be put to trial merely for formality.
Judgments Relied Upon by the Court:-
The Court relied upon and reaffirmed the principles laid down in the following judgments:
1. Yash Pal v. State of J&K & Ors.
Criminal Revision No. 60/2010; Cr. M.P. No. 38/2010
Criminal trial – Material prosecution witnesses not supporting the case – Case rightly dismissed without examining formal witnesses.
2. UT of J&K v. Shah Din @ Shava S/o Hamida Gujjar (read para 11&12) JKLHC-JMU-3, decided on 30.09.2025 The High Court held that:
Where the prosecutrix declines to identify the perpetrator or exonerates the accused, either she was a consenting party or the accused was not the real perpetrator. In such circumstances, continuation of trial would be meaningless.
The Sessions Court relied on this precedent to justify truncation of proceedings mid-trial.
Final Order of the Court
The prosecution challan was dismissed., The accused was acquitted of all charges under Section 64 BNS and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act. Recording of the accused’s statement under Section 351 BNSS was dispensed with. Jail authorities were directed to release the accused forthwith, if not required in any other case. Bail bonds and personal bonds were ordered to stand discharged.
Legal Significance of the Judgment:- This judgment is significant as it reiterates that:- DNA evidence can decisively dismantle a prosecution case. Courts are empowered to truncate criminal trials midway where continuation would be oppressive and futile. The testimony of the prosecutrix remains central and determinative in sexual offence cases. Criminal law must not be used as a tool for mechanical prosecution when conviction is legally impossible.
Court Details
Court: Principal Sessions Judge, Samba (Special Court under POCSO Act)
Case Title: UT of J&K v. Nirmal Sharma
FIR No.: 81/2025, Police Station Samba
Offences Alleged: Section 64 BNS and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act
Date of Decision: 30 December 2025
Appearance:- Ajay kumar( PP)
Arjun Singh Pathania (Adv) for Accused
