Back
High Court Of Orissa
A. K. PATNAIK, M. M. DAS
THOGORANI ALIAS K.DAMAYANTI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - Respondent
W. P. (CRI.) 198 Of 2003
Decided On : 07/20/2004
DNA Test - Criminal Procedure - Sections 53, 173(8) of Cr. P. C. - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a victim lady, filed an F. I. R. alleging rape and subsequent threats and torture by the accused. The investigation led to the filing of charges under Sections 376/506/34, IPC and Section 3 of the S. C. and S. T. (P. A.) Act. The petitioner sought further investigation, including DNA testing to establish paternity of her children.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the ossification test established the petitioner was a minor at the time of the offense, but DNA testing was necessary to conclusively prove the accused's paternity and establish the offense of rape.
Issues: The key issue was whether the court could direct DNA testing after the commencement of trial and if it would infringe the accused's rights under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code empowered the Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation, including DNA testing. It balanced public interest and the accused's rights, concluding that DNA testing did not violate the accused's rights under Article 20(3) and 21.
Final Decision: The court directed the Investigating Officer to collect blood samples from the accused and the children for DNA testing, admitting the report as evidence. The petitioner was ordered to cooperate with the trial, and a stay order was placed until the DNA test report was submitted.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are similar citations of the Supreme Court that relate to the principles of DNA testing, the rights of the accused under Articles 20(3) and 21, and the scope of investigation under the Criminal Procedure Code:
The Court has emphasized that the collection of biological samples for DNA testing is a crucial aspect of criminal investigation and can be directed by the Court to establish paternity or guilt, provided it balances public interest with individual rights (!) .
The Court has clarified that even after charges are framed and the trial has commenced, the Investigating Officer can be directed to conduct further investigations, including DNA testing, under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, particularly Section 173(8) (!) .
It has been held that the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) does not extend to refusing a Court-ordered DNA test, especially when such testing is a means of establishing facts relevant to the case, and the Court must balance this against the public interest (!) .
The Court has recognized that the right to privacy under Article 21 can be balanced against the needs of justice, and that compelling a person to provide biological samples for DNA testing can be justified if it is necessary for the investigation, provided it does not infringe unduly upon individual rights (!) .
The Court has established that the procedure for collecting biological samples should be carried out by a qualified medical practitioner and in accordance with legal safeguards, ensuring that the procedure is not intrusive beyond what is necessary for the purpose of investigation (!) .
It has been articulated that adverse inferences can be drawn if the accused refuses to submit to DNA testing when ordered by the Court, especially when such refusal hampers the course of justice and the evidence is crucial for establishing guilt or innocence (!) .
The Court has held that the investigation process includes all proceedings that are necessary to gather evidence, and that the Court has the authority to direct further investigation even after initial charges, including the collection of biological evidence for DNA analysis (!) .
It has been reaffirmed that the Court's power to order DNA testing is not limited by the stage of the trial but must be exercised judiciously, considering the rights of the accused and the interests of justice (!) .
Please note that these citations are thematic and reflect general principles derived from the case law principles discussed in the document, without referencing specific case names or external judgments.
M. M. DAS, J.
( 1 ) PETITIONER is the victim lady and the informant in Sessions Case No. 20 of 2002 corresponding to G. R. Case No. 225/2001 pending in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Gajapati, Parlakhemundi. ,
( 2 ) THE matrix of this case, bereft of unnecessary details is that the petitioner lodged an F. I. R. before Parlakhemundi Police Station on 16-7-2001 alleging therein that when she was 14 years of age, the opposite party no. 3 developed relationship with her giving assurance of marriage and cohabitated with her. As a consequence of the same, a female child was born to her who is now aged about two and half years and by the time of lodging the F. I. R. she conceived for the second time through opp. party No. 3. She further alleged in the F. I. R. that the family members of opposite party No. 3 were threatening and forcing her to forbear from such relationship with opposite party No. 3 and at a point of time even offered her Rs. 10,000/- for aborting the child which she conceived through the opposite party No. 3 and also ill treated and tortured her.
( 3 ) THE petitioner has averred in the writ petition that initially the said F. I. R. was registered as RS. Case No. 123/2001 against the opposite party No. 3 and others for commission of offences under Sections 498a/506/34, I. P. C.
( 4 ) DURING the course of investigation, which was being done by the S. D. P. O. Parlakhemundi, an application was filed on 3-12-2001 by the said S. D. P. O. opposite party No. 2, before the S. D. J. M. , parlakhemundi to treat the said P. S. Case no. 123/2001 to be one under Sections 376/ 417/506/34, IPC read with Section 3 of the s. C. and S. T. (P. A.) Act and on the basis of the said application G. R. Case No. 225/2002 was registered for the offences under the aforesaid Sections. During the course of investigation, the petitioner gave birth to a second female child on 24-12-2001 at melliaplaitti Government Hospital and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 18-4-2001 on which cognizance of offences under Sections 376/506/34, IPC and Section 3 of the S. C. and S. T. (P. A.) Act was taken by the learned S. D. J. M. , paralakhemundi on 10-5-2003 and thereafter the case has been committed to the Court of Session and is now pending as S. C. Case No. 20 of 2002 before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Paralakhemundi. The order granting bail to opposite party No. 3 has been cancelled by this Court in Crl. Misc. Case No. 4140 of 2002.
( 5 ) THE petitioner further averred that on 10-2-2003 an application was filed on her before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, paralakhemundi under Section 173 (8), cr. P. C. for directing to make further investigation of the aforesaid P. S. Case No. 123 of 2001, stating therein that the police during investigation has not taken steps for medical examination of the petitioner with regard to her age and has not conducted dna test regarding paternity of the issues born and unless the Investigating Agency conducts the aforesaid test, the accused opposite party No. 3 will go scot free. This application was rejected by the Court below only on the ground that the petition having not been filed by the public prosecutor, the same cannot be taken into consideration. It appears that the petitioner thereafter challenged the said order of rejection in Crl. Revision No. 332 of 2003 before this Court in which the impugned order was set aside and the Addl. Sessions Judge was directed to take a decision on the said petition afresh. Pursuant to the said order, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by order dated 24-7-2003 directed the opposite party No. 2 , the s. D. P. O. to investigate into the case and submit a supplementary case diary within 45 days from the date of the said order before the learned S. D. J. M. . Paralakhemundi with regard to the age of the petitioner by conducting ossification test and further gave liberty to the Investigating Officer to take steps for DNA test after determining the blo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
