Advocates Appeared:
A.C.MOHANTY, G.N.ROUT, Lina Patnaik, N.PANIGRAHI, V.NARASINGH

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:

1. 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 (!) .

2. 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) (!) .

3. 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 (!) .

4. 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 (!) .

5. 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 (!) .

6. 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 (!) .

7. 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 (!) .

8. 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.