DNA Test In POCSO/Rape Cases Not A Matter Of Course, Requires 'Cast-Iron Case': Allahabad High Court - 2025-09-10

DNA Test in Rape & POCSO Cases Not a Routine Matter, Requires "Cast-Iron Case": Allahabad High Court Upholds Trial Court's Decision

GHAZIPUR, U.P. - The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, has reinforced the principle that directing a DNA test on a prosecutrix and her child in a rape and POCSO Act case cannot be done as a matter of course. Justice Rajeev Misra, while dismissing an application filed by the accused, Ram Chandra Ram, held that such a test can only be ordered in compelling and unavoidable circumstances that present a "cast-iron case."

The court upheld the Ghazipur Special POCSO Court's order, which had rejected the accused's plea for a DNA test, emphasizing that the paternity of a child is not the primary issue to be determined in a trial for rape under Section 376 of the IPC.

Case Background

The case originates from an FIR lodged on June 22, 2021, concerning an incident on March 29, 2021. The accused, Ram Chandra Ram, was charged under Sections 376 (rape), 452 (house-trespass), 342 (wrongful confinement), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, along with Sections 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Following an investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the trial commenced. After five prosecution witnesses had already testified, the accused filed an application on May 18, 2023, requesting a DNA test for the prosecutrix and her child. The accused argued that the test was necessary to establish his innocence, claiming the child's birth was premature yet fully developed, suggesting he was not the father. The trial court rejected this application on November 2, 2023, prompting the accused to approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Arguments Before the High Court

• Applicant's Counsel: Mr. Bheshaj Puri, representing the applicant, argued that the trial court's order was illegal and arbitrary. He contended that a fair trial's objective is to uncover the truth, and a DNA test would scientifically prove the accused's guilt or innocence. He submitted that denying the test was an impediment to discovering the truth and cited several judgments to support his claim for allowing scientific evidence.

• State's Counsel (A.G.A.): The Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the application, defending the trial court's order as just and legal. He argued that the application was filed at a belated stage after charges were framed and five witnesses had been examined. He stressed that in a rape trial, the paternity of the child is not the central question. Furthermore, he stated that the applicant had failed to show any exceptional circumstances that would warrant a DNA test, which cannot be ordered in a routine manner.

Court's Rationale and Legal Precedents

Justice Misra meticulously analyzed the legal position on directing DNA tests, drawing upon a wealth of Supreme Court precedents, including Goutam Kundu vs. State of West Bengal , Bhabani Prasad Jena vs. Convenor Secretary , and Dipanwita Roy vs. Ronobroto Roy .

The Court highlighted the delicate balance between the search for truth and the right to privacy, noting that such tests can have "serious social consequences" and potentially bastardize a child.

"The DNA test of the prosecutrix and her child has serious social consequences. Only when compelling and unavoidable circumstances have emerged on record, which make out a cast-iron case for directing DNA test of the prosecutrix and her child that Court can direct for such a test," the judgment observed.

The High Court noted several key reasons for dismissing the application: 1. Belated Stage: The request was made late in the trial, after charges were framed and substantial prosecution evidence was already on record. 2. Irrelevance of Paternity: The core finding of the trial court—that paternity is not a necessary element to prove the offence of rape—was not successfully challenged by the applicant. 3. Lack of Compelling Grounds: The application did not present "strong and clinching facts" or "impeccable evidence" to establish a compelling necessity for the DNA test. 4. Procedural Stage: With the trial at the stage of prosecution evidence, directing what is essentially defence evidence would be improper.

The court distinguished the precedents cited by the applicant, noting that they were sustained in peculiar circumstances, such as matrimonial disputes where the husband had established a clear case of non-access to his wife.

Final Decision and Implications

Concluding that the trial court did not commit any illegality or jurisdictional error, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the application. The decision serves as a crucial reminder to trial courts to exercise extreme care, caution, and circumspection when faced with requests for DNA tests in sexual assault cases, ensuring they are not used as a tool to delay trials or harass victims. The ruling underscores that the focus of a rape trial remains on the act of non-consensual sexual intercourse, not on its biological consequences.