Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(All) 1768
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Rajeev Misra, J
Ram Chandra Ram – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others – Respondent
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24302 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Amit Kumar Yadav,Bheshaj Puri
For the Respondents: G.A.
DNA tests in legal proceedings must not be routine; compelling circumstances must merit their necessity, balancing privacy rights against judicial truth-seeking.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - DNA Test - Application for DNA test of prosecutrix and her child was rejected by lower court as unnecessary - Court held that DNA tests should not be ordered as a matter of course and the necessity must be demonstrated clearly - Accused-applicant’s application for DNA test deemed legally insufficient. (Paras 11, 19, 20)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 112 - Presumption of legitimacy - Courts hesitant to order DNA testing in paternity disputes unless compelling circumstances are demonstrated - Importance of balancing individual privacy rights against the court's duty to ascertain truth. (Paras 15-19)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, charge sheeted for serious offenses including rape, sought a DNA test to establish his innocence, using the claim that the child born to the prosecutrix was not his. The trial was at a stage where substantial evidence had already been collected.
Findings of Court:
The court found the order rejecting the DNA test application justified, with no compelling grounds established by the applicant for its necessity.
Issues: The main issue was whether a DNA test was warranted in determining the veracity of allegations against the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that DNA tests should not be ordered routinely; a strong prima facie case must be present to override protections against invasion of privacy.
Result: Application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial hearings and context established. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. allegations in fir regarding serious offenses are detailed. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. arguments regarding the necessity for a dna test are presented. (Para 12 , 18) |
| 4. court emphasizes the need for strong reasons to justify dna testing. (Para 15 , 19) |
| 5. final ruling to dismiss the application is reached. (Para 20 , 22) |
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Bheshaj Puri, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.
2. Perused the record.
3. Applicant-Ram Chandra Ram, who is a named and charge sheeted accused, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the present Cr. Misc. Application under section 482 of Cr. P.C. and quash the order dated 02.11.2023 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge POCSO Court, Ghazipur, in Special Session Trail No.573/2021 arises out of Case Crime No. 187of 2021 under sections 376,452,342,506 of I.P.C. & 5/6 of POCSO Act, police station Zamaniya, District- Ghazipur, whereby the application marked as paper no. '36 ba' for D.N.A. Test filed by the applicant has been rejected.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to stay the effect and operation of the order dated 02.11.2023 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge POCSO Court, Ghazipur, in Special Session Trail No.573/2021 arises out of Case Crime No. 187of 2021 under sections 376,452,342,506 of I.P.C. & 5/6 of POCSO Act, police station Zamaniya, District- Ghazipur."
4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 29.03.2021, a delayed FIR dated 22.06.2021 was lodged by first informant-opposite party-2, Smt. (mother of the prosecutrix) and was registered as Case Crime No. 0187 of 2021, under Sections 376, 452, 342, 506 IPC and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station-Jamaniya, District-Ghazipur. In the aforesaid FIR, applicant-Ram Chandra Ram has been nominated as solitary named accused.
5. Gravamen of the allegations made in the FIR is that named accused entered the house of first informant on 29.03.2021 at around 6:00 – 7:00 p.m. He, thereafter, forcibly carried away the minor daughter of the first informant-opposite party-2 to his home. Subsequently, the modesty of the prosecutrix was dislodged by applicant by committing rape upon her.
6. Subsequent to the aforementioned FIR, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. On the basis of material collected by Investigating Officer, during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that offence complained of against accused-applicant is fully established. He, therefore, opined to submit a charge sheet. Accordingly, Investigating Officer, submitted the charge sheet/police report dated 20.07.2021 in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., whereby accused-applicant was charge sheeted under Sections 376, 452, 342, 506 IPC and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act.
7. After submission of aforementioned charge sheet/police report, cognizance was taken upon same by the Court concerned, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Resultantly, Special Sessions Trial No. 573 of 2021 (State Vs. Ram Chandra Ram), under Sections 376, 452, 342, 506 IPC and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station-Jamaniya, District-Ghazipur came to be registered. The concerned Sessions Judge in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 228 Cr.P.C. framed charges against accused-applicant, vide framing of charge order dated 25.04.2022. However, accused-applicant denied the same and demanded trial. Consequently, the trial procedure commenced. Up to this stage, five prosecution witnesses have deposed before Court below.
8. At this juncture, applicant filed an application dated 18.05.2023 (Paper No. 36 Ba) before Court
