Back
TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Moushumi Bhattacharya and
B.R. Madhusudhan Rao, JJ.
Clawrance Fransis – Petitioner
versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
I.A.No.1 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.305 of 2025
Decided on 27.6.2025
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant: Sri P. Krishna Prakash, learned counsel
For the Respondent-State: Sri M. Rama Chandra Reddy, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
IMPORTANT POINT
Accused person has continuing right to defend himself/herself which includes presenting best possible evidence before Court to prove his/her innocence – Conviction does not extinguish that right.
Headnote:
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 5 read with Section 6 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 112 – DNA Test – Paternity of foetus inside victim of sexual assault perpetrated by Petitioner – Only definitive conclusion which may be drawn in cases of paternity is when DNA Test result does not match; in such cases, identity of person is not established – However, contrary cannot amount to a ‘conclusion’ – Petitioner, being a 80-year old man, continues to remain under cloud of impugned conviction based solely on DNA Test result – Accused person has continuing right to defend himself/herself which includes presenting best possible evidence before Court to prove his/her innocence – Conviction does not extinguish that right, particularly where a doubt regarding veracity of a crucial piece of evidence has potential of that evidence being discarded altogether – Need to dispel any possibility of fabrication or foul play is of utmost importance where life and liberty of a person convicted of an offence teeters on evidence (DNA Report) – Even if there is an iota of doubt as to sanctity of procedure or correctness of evidence, accused should be given opportunity to disprove earlier test result – Petitioner permitted to take a second DNA Test by offering fresh blood sample(s). (Paras 13, 16, 17, 18 and 21)
Result: I.A. allowed.
ORDER
Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.—The petitioner/appellant seeks permission for a second DNA Test by offering fresh blood samples and for comparing the same with the samples earlier drawn and preserved by the prosecution.
2. The petitioner was the Accused No.1 before the Trial Court in Sessions Case PCS No.70 of 2022. By the impugned judgment dated 30.12.2024, the petitioner/A.1 was found guilty of the offence under section 5 read with section 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for Life and a fine of Rs.10,000/-. The Accused No.2 was found guilty of the offences under section 5 read with section 6 of the POCSO Act and section 506 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860, and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and 2 years, respectively.
3. The particulars of the factual matrix before the Trial Court or the substantive challenge to the impugned judgment are not relevant for the present I.A. since that would be the subject matter of the Appeal. The only point of relevance is whether the petitioner/A.1 should be permitted to undergo a second DNA Test.
4. The short point is whether the petitioner has made out a case of procedural lapses in the conduct of the first DNA Test or whether the conclusions in the DNA Test Report give rise to unanswered questions.
5. The brief facts which are relevant only for the purposes of the present I.A. are as follows:
6. The victim was about 16 years of age on the date of the incident. The petitioner/A.1 is a neighbour whose name was subsequently added based on the statement of the victim at the Bharosa Center before the Sub Inspector of Police and during the Medico-Legal Examination conducted by the Medical Officer at Bharosa Center. A.2 is a member of the extended family of the victim. The petitioner’s name did not feature in the First Information Report (FIR) dated 24.09.2021. The FIR mentioned only A.2 as the perpetrator.
7. The petitioner/A.1 was convicted by the Trial Court solely on the basis of the DNA Test and the conclusion drawn therefrom was that the petitioner is the biological father of the foetus. The Trial Court also concluded that the DNA Test established that the petitioner had committed sexual assault on the victim and that the petitioner had not taken any defence denying these allegations.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A.1 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor have made their respective submissions.
9. We have considered the material relied on behalf of the petitioner for the second DNA Test.
10. The Additional Public Prosecutor prefaces his submissions by stating that the prosecutor would not be prejudiced by a second DNA Test and that the petitioner failed to raise any objection against the DNA Report before the Trial Court or to take any steps for re-analysis of the same.
11. Admittedly, the DNA Report was issued by Dr. G.Pandu, Assistant Director, Telangana State Forensic Science Laboratories, Hyderabad, on 27.12.2021, and was approved and countersigned by the Joint Director, TSFSL, Hyderabad. However, the letters of the Assistant Commissioner of Police referred to in the said Report vide Letter No.63/FSL/ACP-SBZR-D/2021, dated 11.10.2021 and Letter No.67/FSL/ACP-SBZR-D/2021 dated 22.10.2021 were not marked as exhibits, which is mandatory for proving the chain of custody of the DNA Test material.
12. Moreover, the result of the examination uses the word ‘conclusively’ with regard to the petitioner being the biological father of the source/foetal tissue and cord blood. The ‘Note’ to the DNA Report states that the entire case property (blood, foetal bone and tissue) ‘are used up during the examination’.
13. It is important to remember that the only definitive conclusion which may be drawn in cases of paternity is when the DNA Test result does not match; in such cases, the identity of the person is not established. However, the contrary cannot amount to a ‘conclusion’:
