Convicting a 20-year-old for sodomising his minor cousin, the Delhi High Court recently said that the matching of DNA samples cannot necessarily be a ground to prove sexual offence. In a judgment that is set to have a large scale impact, the court observed that although samples taken from the accused did not match with the samples drawn from the victim, it does not rule out the involvement of the accused. The court relied on the 10-year-old minor's and his family's testimony and the abrasion found on his buttocks for conviction. The accused has been convicted under POCSO Act and sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment. Legal experts say that this is a rare case as the forensic reports are otherwise considered a strong evidence for arriving at the conclusion in sexual offence cases. Justices Vipin Sanghi and PS Teji were hearing an appeal filed by Delhi Police against the acquittal of 20-year-old Dharmender by a trial court. Dharmender was acquitted by the trial court, which said that there was a possibility of minor's testimony being tutored and the unmatching of DNA samples. It rapped the trial court judge for showing a casual, cavalier and insensitive approach in the case. "We are dismayed that the learned ASJ has shown complete lack of sensitivity in dealing with the present case. Offences relating to sexual abuse of children are amongst most heinous crimes. It is for this reason that Parliament has framed the special law, namely, the POCSO Act, since the provisions contained in the IPC were found to be not adequate enough to deal with such like offences," it observed. The minor and his family had gone to attend jagran at a Kalkaji mandir when his cousin lured him with an offer to buy cold drink, took him to a forest and sexually abused him. The minor began to bleed but managed to run back to the temple from where one lady took him back home. After reaching home he informed his parents and was taken to the hospital. Aashaa Tiwari, additional public prosecutor, told court that the trial court judgment borders on perversity. The trial court failed to notice the ample corroboration of the statement of the victim found on record in the form of the statements of the parents as well as the medical evidence brought on record. "Non-detection of blood stain in the forensic examination of the jean worn by the victim does not destroy the case of the prosecution. That may be a result of bleeding not being severe or continuous. Pertinently, the medical examination of the victim did find a abrasion over the left inguinal region. There was no scope for doubting the injury suffered by the victim in the anal region, merely because blood was not detected in the jean pant of the victim (sic)," said the judgment