DNA test proved madrasa teacher impregnated minor daughter, but court acquits him — here’s why

Mail This Article
Kasaragod: A fast-track special court for sexual offences against children acquitted a former madrasa teacher charged with sexually abusing and impregnating his minor daughter despite a DNA test confirming his paternity.
According to Kasaragod's Nileshwar Police, which investigated the case, the minor girl was subjected to repeated sexual assault for two years by seven persons, including her father and a juvenile.
They registered six separate cases of trafficking, rape and gang rape of a minor girl below 16 years. When the crime came to light on July 20, 2020, she was 15 years, 11 months, and 20 days. Five cases of sexual assault collapsed after witnesses, including the victim, turned hostile.
In the latest case, the police and prosecution were hoping for a conviction as the DNA test on the foetal remains — exhumed from the family's courtyard — conclusively linked the girl's father to the horrid crime.
The police had also named as accused the girl's mother and two doctors — one, the gynaecologist who terminated the three-month-old pregnancy, and two, the radiologist who performed the ultrasound scanning — for not reporting the sexual assault on the child. The two doctors got the cases against them quashed from the High Court.
On Monday, February 3, fast-track court judge Suresh P M acquitted the other two accused — the father and mother — because of the Kerala Police and the prosecution's "grave procedural lapses that undermined the sanctity of the DNA evidence", said defence counsel Adv Sajan K A. Public prosecutor Adv A Gangadharan, however, attributed the extraordinary acquittal to witnesses turning hostile, leaving the DNA test result as just another piece of "circumstantial evidence".
Adv Sajan said the court would have considered the DNA evidence even if the witnesses had turned hostile, provided the integrity of the DNA evidence was maintained. "The Supreme Court had time and again said that DNA evidence can be considered as conclusive only if the integrity of the 'chain of custody' is maintained," he said. In this case, the police undermined the chain of custody, said Adv Sajan, appointed by the District Legal Service Authority (DLSA) because the accused could not afford a lawyer.
The flaws
Nileshwar police, led by Station House Office - Inspector Manoj P R, exhumed the foetus from the courtyard of the victim's house on August 1, 2020. According to the defence counsel, forensic surgeon Dr Shanth S Nair from Kannur Government Medical College at Pariyaram said only bones were recovered, and he took them for examination.
The Tahsildar, assigned to conduct the inquest, did not perform the duty but contradicted the forensic surgeon by saying flesh and bones were recovered, said Adv Sajan. But the police did one better. Their 'mahazar' or crime scene documentation recorded only the shroud used to cover the foetus for burial and did not mention the foetal remains.
"There was no evidence in court that the foetus was recovered from the family's courtyard. Ideally, the remains should have been presented before the court before being sent to the forensic surgeon," he said.
If that is not done, the police can directly give the remains to the forensic surgeon for examination, provided they have given a request letter. If the request letter was not given by the police, the forensic surgeon should have given an examination certificate saying he had examined the material evidence.
"Neither the police gave the requisition letter nor the doctor gave the examination certificate," said Adv Sajan. Without any documentation, the police surgeon sent the foetal remains for DNA analysis at the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Kannur.
Again, the blood samples collected from the girl's father were presented before the court after four days, he said. "There was a break in the chain of custody of the biological samples," he said. Blood samples from two other accused — Muhammed Riyas and Muhammedali P P — were also collected for DNA testing. "However, the prosecution could not specify who collected the samples or when they were taken. There was absolutely no documentation," said Adv Sajan.
The trial court went by the Supreme Court ruling in the Shrishail vs State of Karnataka (2023) where it said DNA report was not dependable for serious convictions without proper documentation and handling. "The chain of custody must not be compromised while collection, preservation, sealing and labelling of evidence," he said. "The police might have thought the DNA report was enough for conviction."

How the doctors were booked
Sometime in the second week of June 2020, the girl's parents took her to a government hospital in their neighbourhood after she missed her period for two months. The doctor prescribed three days of medication.
Three days later, on June 12, 2020, when the medication did not work, the parents took the girl to Dr Komalam K, a gynaecologist in Nileshwar. She prescribed seven days of medication. On June 19, 2020, the doctor recommended a scanning test. The family took the girl to the District Hospital, where the scanning was not done, but doctors gave her a tablet. She vomited and collapsed after having it.
From there, the same day, the family took the girl to Laxmi Meghan Speciality Hospital in Kanhangad for an ultrasound. The resident radiologist, Dr Sheethal C M, performed the scanning and found the girl was pregnant with a foetus that was three months and six days old. Her scanning report clearly mentioned the girl's age as 15 years.
The family took the report back to Dr Komalam, the gynaecologist who recommended the scanning. She confirmed the pregnancy after seeing the report. The same day, that is on June 19, 2020, the parents took the girl to Arimala Hospital in Kanhangad, said Adv Sajan. The gynaecologist there, Dr T Ambujakshi, gave the girl a medicine for bleeding, he said.
On June 22, the parents brought the girl to Arimala Hospital as she was bleeding heavily. "She went straight to the hospital bathroom, where she suffered a miscarriage," he said. The foetus was left behind.
Hospital staff then took her to Dr Ambujakshi, who performed a D&C (dilation and curettage), a surgical procedure to remove remaining tissue after a miscarriage or abortion. "The cleaning staff later found the foetus and handed it to the girl's family, who buried it in their courtyard," said Adv Sajan, reading from the court documents. Soon after, the girl's maternal uncle found something was amiss with her. When nudged, she revealed her ordeal. With his support, the girl approached Nileshwar police with her complaint (During the trial, this uncle had also turned hostile.).
On July 20, Nileshwar police, led by inspector P R Manoj, registered six cases against seven accused, including a juvenile and the girl's father. Except for the juvenile, the other six accused remained in judicial custody for 90 days. During the custodial interrogation, the father revealed where the foetus was buried and police exhumed the remains on August 1.
That same day, the Juvenile Justice Board, led by the District and Sessions Judge, issued a show-cause notice to Nileshwar Station House Officer, Inspector Manoj, questioning why the doctors in the case were not booked. When the notice surfaced on social media, the police moved court against it.
On August 17, 2020, Nileshwar Police filed their final report naming Dr T Ambujakshi, the gynaecologist at Arimala Hospital, and Dr Sheethal, the radiologist at Laxmi Meghan, as the second and third accused in FIR No. 377/2020. The mother was made the fourth accused. They booked Dr Ambujakshi for illegally terminating the pregnancy and not reporting the crime against a minor girl. Dr Sheethal and the mother were booked for not reporting the crime.
How the doctors wriggled out
Interestingly, Nileshwar Police did not book Dr Komalan, the popular gynaecologist in Nileshwar, though she was also privy to the scanning report that mentioned the girl's age as 15 years. The prosecution made her a witness. Dr Ambujakshi and Dr Sheethal approached the high court seeking to quash the case against them in 2020.
On November 29, 2021, Justice M R Anitha quashed the case against Dr Sheethal saying, "apart from conducting the test of scanning, no other responsibility is actually vested with the doctor who conducts the pre-natal diagnostic test". To make her point clearer, Justice Anitha wrote in the judgment that scanning is "conducted by the radiologist with an equipment and technique" and the result received "is given to the patient and nothing more than that would be done by a radiologist while conducting scanning".
The public prosecutor told the court that Dr Sheethal’s scan report confirmed the girl was 12 weeks pregnant and "clearly stated the victim's age as 15 years." Therefore, Dr. Sheethal "was fully aware of the child's pregnancy, and under Section 21 read with Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act, was legally bound to inform the authorities." But Justice Anitha saw it differently. She, however, said in the judgment that "it was curious to note that the prosecution made Dr Komalam, the gynaecologist who prescribed scanning to the victim, a witness".
On January 23, 2025, 11 days before the trial court acquitted the father and mother, the High Court quashed the case against Dr T Ambujakshi, the gynaecologist who performed the D&C on the girl. Justice A Badharudeen noted that all documents from Arimala Hospital listed the girl's age as 18 years and Dr Ambujakshi would not know if she was a minor.
While quashing the cases against the two doctors, the two high court judges leaned on the Supreme Court judgment in Tessy Jose Vs the State of Kerala case, which said "there was no obligation on the doctor to investigate and detect knowledge regarding the age of the victim".
Justice Badharudeen in his judgment wrote: "While implicating doctors in criminal cases with the aid of Section 19 of the POCSO Act, the investigating officer must apply his mind from the materials collected and form an unbiased opinion to see, prima facie, that there is deliberate intention or omission to report the crime".
No DNA but…
Despite the acquittal, the girl's father will remain in prison for now. The girl's father is a native of Sullia, a town bordering Kasaragod, in Karnataka's Dakshina Kannada district. A police officer said he has another wife and five children there.
He came to Kasaragod and got a job as a teacher in a madrasa in Bekal. In 2017, Bekal police booked him under the POCSO Act for allegedly sexually assaulting four boys at the school. The madrasa fired him after the case was registered. He was out on bail in those cases when he assaulted his daughter from his second wife, the police officer said. Recently, a trial court convicted and sentenced him to 10 years each in prison in two of the cases, Adv Sajan said. "The sentences will run concurrently. So he will be out in 10 years," he said.