Shivakant Prasad, J.

Challenge in this revisional application is against an order dated 28.11.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. 2nd Court, Hooghly, in Sessions Trial Case No. 33/2013 and Sessions Case No. 139/2013 arising out of Pandua Police Station Case No. 282/11 dated 03.11.2011 under Sections 376/417 of the Indian Penal Code thereby, allowing the prayer of the prosecution for holding a DNA test of the accused and the child.

Chronological events of this case is that the petitioner was arraigned as an accused in connection with Pandua Police Station Case No. 282/11 dated 03.11.2011 under Sections 376/420 of the Indian Penal Code, which was registered on the basis of a written complaint lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against him.

On conclusion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted Charge-sheet being No. 115/2012 dated 31.5.2012 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and cognizance was taken as per Section 193 Cr.P.C. The session trial was started after framing of Charges under Section 376/417 of the Indian Penal Code to which the petitioner abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried.

During trial, a petition was filed on behalf of the prosecution on 20.8.2014 praying for holding DNA test of the petitioner and the child of the opposite party no. 2 and the petitioner filed an objection to it and after contested hearing the learned trial Judge was pleased to allow the application of the prosecution for holding DNA test vide order dated 28.11.2014 at the stage when examination of 3 prosecution witnesses was completed.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 28.11.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, 2nd Court, Hooghly in S. T. Case No. 33/13 and S.C. Case No. 139/13 arising out of Pandua Police Station Case No. 282/11 dated 03.11.2011 under Sections 376/417 of the Indian Penal Code thereby, inter alia, allowing the prayer of the prosecution for holding a DNA test, inter alia, on the grounds that the learned Judge has observed in the impugned order that during cross-examination the learned Counsel for the defence had put a suggestion that the petitioner has not fathered the child born to the opposite party no. 2 and in view of such suggestion, DNA test is necessary to prove the physical relationship between them; determination of paternity is within the domain of the civil court and the learned Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order and that the opposite party no. 2 was cross-examined in September, 2013 and it is absolutely absurd what prompted the prosecution to act on such cross-examination and prefer an application for DNA test after lapse of almost a year.

Accordingly, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned order as bad in law and in fact.

Now the point for decision is as to whether the order impugned is tenable in law.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Sessions Court has no authority to pass an order for DNA test and in support of his submission, has placed reliance on the decisions, viz., Sharda Vs. Dharmpal, (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 493; Goutam Kundu Vs. State of West Bengal and Another, 1993 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 928; Dipanwita Roy Vs. Ronobroto Roy reported in (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 365; Anandamay Bag Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., 2007(4) CHN 470 and Sabur Hossain Biswas @ Paltu Vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors. (2008) 1 C Cr LR (Cal) 332.

In case of Goutam Kundu (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus—

“Blood grouping test is a useful test to determine the question of disputed paternity. It can be relied upon by courts as a circumstantial evidence which ultimately excludes a certain individual as a father of the child. However, no person can be compelled to give sample of blood for analysis against his/her will and no adverse inference can