IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in criminal cases involving allegations of sexual offenses and disputed paternity, DNA testing can be ordered by the court if it is deemed necessary to establish the truth.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed the present CRMP under Section 482 read with Section 53-A of Code of Criminal Procedure for conducting a Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Profiling Test of accused/respondent No. 3 and first child of petitioner in FIR No. 27/2022 registered at Police Station- Sukma on 10.05.2022 for commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2) ¼<½¼>½ 506 & 323 of I.P.C, in Session Trial No. 113/2022 (State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Dr. Sukhdev Singh Guraya) pending before Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.).

2. Brief facts as reflected from record are that the complainant/petitioner has lodged a complaint in Police Station- Sukma stating that she was resident of Sukma and before her marriage, she was residing with her mother at Sukma. When the petitioner was aged about 12-13 years, her mother used to visit respondent No. 3 for her treatment. Respondent No. 3 used to molest her. He used to commit sexual intercourse with the petitioner against her will, exploited physically, abused and threatened her. Respondent No. 3 committed sexual intercourse with the petitioner first time when she was aged about 13 years and continued the same from year 2005 till January, 2019 and also threatened to kill her and her mother. It has been further contended that the petitioner was married at the age of 18 years on 18.11.2010 to one Sohan Singh and moved village- Pipariya, District- Hoshangabad, Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner used to visit her mother at her home town Sukma and when the petitioner used to visit her mother home at Sukma, respondent No. 3 used to commit sexual intercourse against her will due to which, her elder daughter was born on 04.11.2011 whereas her younger daughter was born from her husband. It has been further contended that on 10.01.2019 at around 2.30 p.m., respondent No. 3 committed sexual intercourse with the petitioner in his house situated above his clinic at Sukma and on protesting, respondent No. 3 had beaten the petitioner with hands and fists. On the basis of complaint lodged by the petitioner, FIR has been registered against accused/respondent No. 3 for commission of offence as aforestated and he has been arrested on 11.05.2022. After due investigation, recording of statement, medical examination, final report has been submitted by the police before the concerned Magistrate on 07.07.2022 and the charges have been framed on 07.09.2022.

3. It has been further contended that after arrest on 11.05.2022, respondent No. 3 had given his consent for conducting DNA profiling test along with other medical examination. The Police on 11.05.2022 filed an application before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sukma for collecting DNA samples of the petitioner, her daughter and respondent No. 3, but the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 12.05.2022 rejected the same stating that the same is not feasible at this stage. The order dated 12.05.2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was challenged by the State by filing revision petitioner before learned Sessions Judge, Dantewada wherein the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 15.06.2022 has set aside the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sukma and directed for collecting blood sample of complainant, her daughter and respondent No. 3 and thereafter pass fresh order. The learned revisional court has also observed that respondent No. 3 is not bound with the order, it is for him to give consent or not for DNA test and what will be the effect, if consent was not given, that will be considered after completion of trial.

4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sukma vide order dated 27.06.2022, directed for collecting sample of the petitioner and her daughter as they have given consent without being influenced or pressure but respondent No. 3 has denied to give his blood sample. Accordingly, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed Investigating Officer to take necessary steps for conducting DNA te