The court established that the direction for blood and semen samples for investigation did not amount to testimonial compulsion and was justified by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

( 1 ) IF an accused person is directed to undergo blood and seminal test for the purpose of investigation, would it amount to testimonial compulsion coming within the prohibition laid down, in Article 20 (3) of the Constitution ? Whether such a process of investigation would be tantamount to inflicting torture and pain on the person of the accused ? Whether there is any provision in the Criminal Procedure Code, to direct an accused person to give samples of his blood and semen and whether the Criminal Court has jurisdiction to give such a direction ? These are the questions that arise for consideration in this petition.

( 2 ) THE 5th accused has filed this petition challenging the dirction of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, that the 5th accused do appear before the director of Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad , to enable that Director to take samples of blood and semen. This is a direction granted by the learned Sessions Judge on a petition made by the prosecution under sectior 482, Criminal Procedure Code, for the above direction not only in regard to the 5th accused, who is the present petitioner, but also the first accused so that the prosecution could complete the investigation.

( 3 ) SOME persons including the petitioner were charged with the offences of abduction and rape. It is alleged by the prosecution that they abducted a woman and took her into the house of the 1st accused in the night of 15th October, 1976 in hyderabad. The Divisional Detective inspector on getting scent of this offence went to the house of A-1 and knocked at the door on which it was opened. Inside he found a woman lying naked on a table and A-1 standing there. There were three persons in the ante-room. The woman complained that she had come from Eluru and that night while she was returning front a picture house, she had been forcibly taken away by the five accused, in a car driven by the present petitioner. She was taken to the house of A-1 where A-5 raped her. While A-1 began to do the same thing, police came. Her skirt was blood -stained and there, was semen on the bed-sheet. After the accused were charge-sheeted before the 4th Metropolitan Magistrate, they were released or bail unconditionally. The prosecution filed a petition that A-l and A-5 be directed to be produced before the Director of Forensic medicine Laboratory for taking samples of blood and semen. This was allowed by the learned Magistrate. On the petition of A-1 this Court quashed that direction on the ground that such direction made by the Magistrate amounted to alteration of conditions of bail imposed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions judge. Any cancellation or alteration of the conditions of bail could only be made by the Sessions Judge who had granted the bail or the High Court under section 439 (2 ). Criminal procedure Code, Therefore the order of the learned 4th Metropolitian magistrate was clearly without jurisdiction and illegal. Thereafter, the prosecution applied to the Metropolitan sessions Judge himself with the same request. As stated above, that learned judge granted the request of the prosecution in so far as the 5th accused, who is the present petitioner, is concerned.

( 4 ) SRI E. Ayyappu Reddy, appearing for the petitioner has raised the points which i have mentioned even at the threshold of my order. I will now deal with them one after the other.

( 5 ) THE argument relating to testimonial compulsion is founded on clause (3) of article 20 of the Constitution. That clause declares: "no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself". It was contended that the prohibition against an accused being a witness against himself cannot be limited to mere giving evidence. The bar is a very comprehensive one taking within its sweep even medical examinations. Reliance was placed on M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, Deoman v. The State, State of Bombay y. Katki kalu, State of Gujarat v. Shyamlal and a single Judge s judgment of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document