ORDER :

U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.

1. In this Criminal Revision Case, the petitioner/accused challenges the order dated 08.09.2014 in Crl.M.P. No. 52/2013 in S.C. No. 327 of 2012 passed by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District, allowing the petition filed by the prosecution under Section 53(A) r/w. 45 of Indian Evidence Act praying the Court to send the defacto complainant, her 18 months old baby and the accused to RFSL, Hyderabad for DNA test to prove the case of the prosecution.

2. (a) The prosecution case is that the defacto complainant and accused are the residents of Boyagudem h/o Chintalapudi village and neighbours to each other. Since 5 years prior to the complaint the accused went around defacto complainant on the guise of love and made proposal to that effect and having believed him, she also accepted his love and the accused promised that he would marry her after getting job. The further case of the prosecution is when the parents of defacto complainant put the marriage proposal to the parents of the accused, they agreed for the marriage. They agreed to perform their marriage after their son got job. Hence, both the families did not object for their close moving. In that process, the accused advanced with the defacto complainant and had sexual intercourse with her for which she consented due to the promise made by him to marry her. However, after the accused got job in ICICI Bank at Vijayawada he refused to marry her inspite of knowing that she became pregnant. He advised her to go for abortion. Hence, she lodged the complaint. By the time of filing charge sheet, defacto complainant was pregnant and later she gave birth to a male child. Hence, the trial Court framed charges under Sections 417, 376 and 506 IPC against accused.

(b) During the course of trial, prosecution filed Crl.M.P. No. 52/2013 to refer the son born to her and the accused for DNA examination to prove the paternity.

(c) Respondent filed counter and opposed the petition contending that there was inconsistency in the evidence of prosecutrix (PW1) and medical evidence regarding her conceiving pregnancy and actual date of delivery and therefore no purpose will be served in allowing the petition.

(d) The trial Court having observed that while the contention of accused was that he had nothing to do with the offence and the complainant's case was that her son was born through accused, it was apposite to direct the accused to undergo DNA examination to decide the paternity of 18 months old baby of the defacto complainant, allowed the petition.

Hence, the instant Criminal Revision Case by accused.

3. Heard arguments of Sri M.P.V.N.V. Sastry, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for 1st respondent. Though notice to 2nd respondent/defacto complainant was served but there is no representation on her behalf.

4. Fulminating the impugned order, learned counsel for petitioner vehemently contended that the evidence on record adduced before the trial Court establish the innocence of the accused and therefore, the attempt on the part of prosecution to refer the accused and baby of the complainant for DNA test is only to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case. It is further contended that in an offence under Section 376 IPC, the DNA test will not have any value addition to the case.

5. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor argued that the petitioner under the guise of love and promise to marry, had repeated sexual intercourse with the victim but after getting job, refused to marry her and thus cheated her and due to deceptive inducement the prosecutrix believed him and surrendered herself to him and thereby she became pregnant and gave birth to a male child, who is now aged about 5 years and therefore, if DNA test is conducted to the accused and the minor boy, the paternity will be decided and thereby the cheating committed by accused against the victim will also be established and considering the same the tri