Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5735
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
Ms. X – Appellant
Versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) through SHO, PS Saket – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 2984/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Nandita Rao, Ms. Aditi Shivadhatri, Ms. Prerna Singh, Ms. Jagriti Singh, Ms. Mamta Saha, Mr. Amit Peswani, Mr. Ankur Raghav
For the Respondents: Mr. Shoaib Haider, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, Mr. Dhruv Chaudhary, Ms. Pallavi Garg, Mr. Anirudh Tanwar, Mr. Shubham Sourav
DNA testing is mandatory in cases of sexual assault to ensure justice and ascertain the truth, overriding claims of legitimacy under certain conditions.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 354, 506, 509, and 376 - Quashing of Order setting aside permission for DNA analysis of blood sample of the accused - Permitting DNA analysis is crucial evidence necessary for proving the case under Section 376 IPC, and failure to obtain such evidence would be detrimental to the prosecution - Court emphasized that the non-cooperation of the accused in investigations does not warrant hindrance in the collection of crucial evidence - Principle established that DNA testing is essential and mandatory in cases of sexual assault to ascertain the truth of the matter. (Paras 51, 87)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner challenged the Order of Additional Sessions Judge denying permission for DNA testing of the accused suspected of rape. The Prosecutrix alleged sexual assault, and the Respondent failed to cooperate with the police investigation, critical evidence for proving the offense.
Findings of Court:
The Court determined that the refusal to allow DNA testing compromises the integrity of the investigation and that the Act provides for mandatory collection of such evidence in rape cases.
Issues: The main issue centered on the necessity of the blood sample for DNA analysis in the context of the allegations under Section 376 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that DNA testing must not be obstructed in rape cases, emphasizing that scientific methods for evidence collection should be prioritized to determine the truth.
Result: Order of the learned ASJ set aside, directing the Respondent to report for blood sample collection within fifteen days.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for quashing an order regarding dna analysis. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual allegations of sexual assault against respondents. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. evidence required for prosecution in a sexual assault case. (Para 7 , 8 , 18) |
| 4. judicial reasoning regarding the allowance of challenging orders. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. importance of dna evidence in proving sexual offences. (Para 12 , 13 , 19) |
| 6. contentions raised against taking dna sample and its implications. (Para 14 , 20 , 22 , 28) |
| 7. provisions regarding the collection of dna evidence under cr.p.c. (Para 51 , 52 , 56) |
| 8. final order permitting blood sample collection for dna testing. (Para 97 , 98) |
JUDGMENT
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. Petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ― Cr.P.C .‖) has been filed by the Petitioner/Ms. X seeking quashing of Order dated 19.04.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi setting aside Order of learned M.M. dated 02.06.2022, whereby blood sample of Respondent No.2/Abhishek Paruthi was permitted to be taken for DNA analysis.
2. Briefly stated, on the Complaint made by the Petitioner / Prosecutrix, FIR No.176/2021 under Sections 354 /506/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ― IPC ‖) PS Saket, was registered against accused Karan Paruthi, elder brother of Respondent No.2/Abhishek Paruthi. On the statement of Petitioner recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C ., Sections 326/313/354/34 IPC were added against Respondent No.2/Abhishek Paruthi.
3. During the pendency of investigations, the Prosecutrix had alleged that on midnight of 21/22.05.2021, while she was sleeping, someone rang her doorbell. She opened the door and found that accused, Karan Paruthi in drunkard condition at her door, who tried to forcefully enter the house by pushing her back, touching her in a wrong way and then tried choking her by strangulating her neck. She somehow kicked him back and managed to close her door. She tried to call Abhishek Paruthi / Respondent No.2, brother of Karan Paruthi, who did not respond to her calls. However, Karan Paruthi repeatedly rang the bell and kept kicking the door and loudly using defamatory and unparliamentary words. Neighbours also gathered and asked him to leave, on which he went down the stairs.
4. Thereafter, the Prosecutrix approached Abhishek Paruthi / Respondent No.2 and informed him about the incident. However, the Prosecutrix was manipulated by the accused persons. On the next day, she filed the Complaint to the Police, on which FIR No.176/2021 was registered at Police Station Saket.
5. During investigations, accused Karan Paruthi & Abhishek Paruthi / Respondent No.2 did not join investigations. Accused Karan Paruthi was granted Bail in July, 2021, but he failed to join investigations for almost 05 months and Application for cancellation of Bail was filed by the State in the Court of learned Sessions Judge. It is only then, Karan Paruthi joined investigations, but did not cooperate with the Investigating Agency and failed to give his mobile phone.
6. Similarly, Abhishek Paruthi / Respondent No.2 absconded for almost 05 months and thereafter got Anticipatory Bail, but failed to join investigations. He also joined investigations after his Bail was cancelled vide Order dated 12.04.2022 and he was arrested on the same day at 08:30 PM. He was taken for medical examination, where he denied providing his medical samples. Even thereafter, he did not cooperate in the investigations and gave evasive responses with regard to whether he has indulged in sexual intercourse with the Petitioner.
7. It is submitted that the Status Report was filed by the IO indicating independent evidence that Abhishek Paruthi / Respondent No.2 forcibly tried to take the Petitioner in an Ambulance to have the foetus aborted. of During the investigation, evidence of the Doctor has also come on record that the accused person approached her to secure the abortion of the foetus. Res
