The court affirmed that the evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient for conviction in rape cases, and a DNA test is not necessary at an advanced trial stage, balancing this against the right to privacy.

JUDGMENT :

AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. The present Criminal Revisional application has been filed under Section 482 read with Sections 398/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 assailing the Impugned Order dated 22.09.2020 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Special Court under E.C. Act at Alipore, thereby, inter alia, rejected the prayer for DNA test filed by the petitioner in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 1(3) of 2012 corresponding to BGR Case No. 6471/2009 arising out of Basanti Police Station Case No. 373 dated 26.12.2009 under Sections 376/417 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending before the Court of the Learned Additional District Judge, Special Court under E.C. Act at Alipore.

2. The brief facts are relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present Criminal Revisional application are that the petitioner being the de-facto complainant/victim woman had lodged a complaint on 11.03.2009 in afternoon to the effect that when she went to bring her goat back at an abandoned place of her village, the accused/opposite party no. 2 committed rape upon her forcibly. The petitioner narrated the incident of rape before the family members of the opposite party no. 2, where the opposite party no. 2 admitted the same and, accordingly, his family members promised to get married her with the accused/opposite party no. 2 but later on they refused.

3. After the refusal of marriage by the accused/opposite party no. 2, the petitioner was compelled to file a petition of complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore on 02.12.2009. Upon being satisfied, the Learned Court below allowed the petitioner’s prayer and directed the Officer-in-Charge, Basanti Police Station to lodge an FIR against the accused and his family members. Consequently, Basanti P.S. Case No. 373/2009 dated 26.12.2009 under Sections 376/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered. When the FIR was lodged, the petitioner was pregnant of 6 months gestational period and later on, she gave birth of a male child on 05.03.2010 named as “Master X.”

4. On 22.03.2010, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet before the Learned Court below and the said case was subsequently committed to the Learned Court of Sessions Judge and, later, it was transferred to the Learned Additional District Judge, Special Court under E.C. Act at Alipore for trial. Subsequently, charge was framed on 16.03.2012 under Sections 376/417 of the IPC and, thereafter, trial has been commenced.

5. During trial, at the request of the petitioner, the accused promised to have the victim and her child back to his home once the trial was concluded. However, in violation of the said promise, the opposite party no. 2 married another woman thereby depriving the petitioner and her minor son. Even after marriage, the accused/opposite party no. 2 provided maintenance to the petitioner and her minor son for a few years. However, from the month of June, 2019, the accused stopped providing any maintenance to the petitioner and her minor son under the pressure and instigation of his second wife and later the opposite party no. 2 denied to recognize the petitioner and her minor son as his wife and son respectively.

6. In the meantime, trial proceeded and the examination of the prosecution witnesses was nearing completion. As such, the petitioner herein filed an application praying for conducting DNA test of the accused person/opposite party no. 2 in order to ascertain the paternity of the child on 25th March, 2019. However, the Learned Judge rejected the said prayer for the DNA Test.

7. It was held by the Learned Trial Court that the Section 376 of the IPC is the provision concerning rape. In case of rape, medical evidence is not always conclusive or final but medical evidence places the role of secondary evidence. If the Court finds that evidence provided by the prosecutrix is sufficient to establish the truth of prosecution case, there i