Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1531
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J.
Ajay Talukdar S/O Late Bhaban Talukdar – Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Assam and Anr.
Crl.Pet./972 of 2019
Decided on : 26-09-2025
For the Appellant : Mr. S Hoque
For the Respondent: Mr. B Sharma, Ld. Legal Aid Mr. B Sharma, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor
The court ruled DNA tests are crucial in establishing paternity in rape cases, underscoring truth-seeking as a priority over privacy concerns.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Application for DNA test - Rejection of the petitioner's request for a DNA test upon the child allegedly fathered by him was quashed. The court noted the relevance of establishing paternity through DNA testing in criminal cases of rape, thereby affirming the necessity of truth-seeking (Paras 5, 6).
(B) Additional Evidence - The court emphasized the application of Section 391, allowing for additional evidence, and stated that DNA profiling is critical in ascertaining the truth regarding allegations of rape and paternity (Paras 6, 7).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of establishing a physical relationship with a minor leading to pregnancy, with the trial court previously rejecting a request for a DNA test to verify paternity.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner is entitled to a DNA test to determine the parentage of the child and whether he committed the offense of rape.
Issues: The court addressed the admissibility of DNA testing to establish the truth regarding the allegations of rape and paternity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the requirement for finding the truth in serious cases like rape outweighs the appellant's privacy claims, justifying the DNA test.
Result: Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis for dna testing application. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court analysis supporting necessity of dna test. (Para 5 , 7) |
| 3. legal arguments for allowing dna tests. (Para 6) |
| 4. conclusion and directive to the trial court. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J.
1. Heard Mr. S Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam and Mr. B Sharma, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C for setting aside and quashing the order dated 26.04.2019 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Bajali in Special POCSO Case No. 11/2016 whereby the prayer of the petitioner/accused for conducting DNA test upon the child allegedly fathered by the petitioner with the victim of the case was rejected.
3. The brief of the case is that on 18-12-2016, the Opp. Party No.2, Shri Rabin Talukdar had lodged an FIR before the In-Charge, Patacharkuchi Police Station stating inter-alia that-"the TA complainant’s own daughter XXX is minor aged about 15 years. The accused and complainant are the neighbor of the same village. The daughter of the complainant being a minor girl, takin chance, the accused person had established physical relationship with her 3 (three) months ago by enticing and threatening her in various manner and also threatened her to kill if she disclose the same before anybody. The daughter of the complainant did not disclose the incident before anybody being ignorant of the incident and also at the threatening of the accused. Taking chance of the same, the accused had repeatedly committed the same. At the irregular menstrual of the daughter of the complainant, while the wife the complainant had asked the daughter, she had disclosed everything and immediately after medical examination, it is found that XXX is pregnant. While the complainant asked the accused person about the incident, the accused person had become aggressive and also threatened to kill them if they ask the accused about the incident in future."
4. Subsequently the case was investigated and charge-sheeted where after the trial was held and after conclusion and recording of the defence statement, the petitioner/accused submitted an application being petition no. 1038/2017 before the Ld. Trial Court praying for DNA test upon the victim’s baby as well as the victim to prove the veracity of the allegations. The same was rejected by the Ld. Trial Court.
5. The Ld. Trial Court observed that if the DNA results would be positive and in favour of the accused, the fate of the child would have to be considered and considering the same in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramkanya Bai v. Bharatnam in Civil Appeal No. 7018 of 2009, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not allow the DNA test of the child in a case of such nature, the prayer of the accused/petitioner was rejected.
6. Mr. S Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sudeep Biswas @ Bura v. The State of Assam and Another 2024 (1) GauLT 37 wherein it has been observed after reviewing a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that :
“The above cases show that there is no bar or restriction in having a DNA profiling of an accused in a case of rape. In the present case, not only is there an allegation of rape against the appellant, but the appellant has been accused of being the father of the child born due to the rape inflicted by the appellant. It is quite clear that DNA profiling of the appellant could prove whether the appellant was the father of the child born to the victim. As Section 53A Cr.PC allows for examination of a person accused of rape through DNA profiling on the request of a Police Officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector, we do not find any bar or restriction for this Court to pass a direction for DNA profiling of the appellant,
