The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of a DNA test to prove the paternity of a child born to the victim girl under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act.

1. This revision has been preferred against the impugned order passed in C.M.P.No.41 of 2007 in S.C.No.118 of 2006 on 14.03.2007 under Section 112 of Indian Evidence Act and under Sections 53 and 173(8) of Cr.P.C.

2.The case of the prosecution is as follows:

(i) The case has been registered by the respondent against the petitioner/accused under Sections 376, 417 I.P.C. and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The respondent filed the petition in C.M.P.No.41/2007 in S.C.No.118/2006 to direct the petitioner/accused person to part with his blood sample as well as to direct P.W.1/Mahalakshmi to part with the blood sample of her male child for D.N.A test before the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madras.

(ii) The petitioner/accused filed his counter affidavit stating that the D.N.A test ought to have been done by the prosecution during the time of investigation. Now, investigation is over, charge sheet was filed and witnesses were examined. So there is no necessity for conducting D.N.A. Test. He further submitted that he cannot be compelled to submit himself for D.N.A. Test to prove the guilt of the accused. So the D.N.A. test is not necessary. Hence he prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

(iii) The learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, after considering the arguments of both sides counsel, allowed the petition by directing the petitioner/accused to part with his blood sample for D.N.A. Test to prove the paternity of the child born to P.W.1/complainant, against which, the petitioner/accused has come forward with this revision.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that as per the ingredients of Sections 376, 417 I.P.C. and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, this paternity test is not required. But the trial Court has not considered this aspect, ordered for conducting D.N.A. Test. On the basis of the complaint given by P.W.1, the case has been registered against the petitioner/accused. Investigation is over and final report has been filed. The case was taken on file and charges were framed. Witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.7 were examined and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. During the pendency of the sessions case, the respondent come forward with the petition for directing the petitioner/accused to submit himself for D.N.A. Test, is unwarranted. To substantiate his arguments, he relied upon the decision reported in the Apex Court and prayed for allowing this revision.

4. Refuting the same, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that it is true that there is no D.N.A. Test for the offences under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as per the prosecution case, the petitioner/accused himself gave false promise to one Mahalakshmi, who is P.W.1 and had sexual intercourse with her for several times. As a result, she conceived. But the petitioner/accused refused to marry her. Thereafter, he demanded 50 sovereigns of jewels. Hence she was forced to file the complaint and the case has been registered against the petitioner/accused under Sections 376, 417 I.P.C. and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During the cross-examination of P.W.1, a suggestion was posed by the defence that the accused is not having sexual intercourse with P.W.1, which was denied by P.W.1. In such circumstances, to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 376, 417 I.P.C., D.N.A. Test is necessary. So the trial Court considered this aspect in proper perspective and allowed the petition and hence there is no irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. Hence he prayed for the dismissal of the revision.

5. Considered the rival submissions made on both sides.

6. Admittedly, on the basis of the complaint given by P.W.1, the case has been registered against the petitioner/accused under Sections 376, 417 I.P.C. and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case of the prosecution and P.W.1 is that the petitioner/accused, after giving false promise that for marry her, had an intercourse with P.W.1, she became pregnan