SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 81470

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
THANKAPPAN V.E – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 6118 OF 2022 | CMP NO.216/2022 | SC 219/2020



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.K.SAJU
For the Respondents: SRI.RENJIT GEORGE, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The court ruled that a competent court may compel an accused to provide blood samples for investigation under Section 53 of Cr.P.C., even after the final report, without violating the right against self-incrimination.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Right against self-incrimination - Legality of court directive to accused for blood sample collection post filing of final report - Court affirmed that Section 53 allows for such collection, emphasizing that it does not infringe on constitutional rights. (Paras 3, 8, 16)

(B) Self-incrimination - The court supported that the directive to collect blood samples does not amount to testimonial compulsion protected under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. (Paras 7, 16)

(C) Further investigation - The court cited Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., confirming the Investigating Officer’s authority to further investigate and collect evidence, including blood samples, post-final report. (Paras 14, 16)

Facts of the case:
Accused filed petition challenging the Special Court's order directing them to provide blood samples to aid ongoing investigation related to heinous charges, despite a final report being filed.

Findings of Court:
The order to collect blood samples is legitimate, and cannot be seen as an infringement of rights against self-incrimination.

Issues: Whether a court can compel an accused to provide blood samples post-final report; whether such an action infringes on the right against self-incrimination.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that collection of blood samples is a permissible part of criminal investigation under Section 53 of Cr.P.C. and does not violate constitutional safeguards.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. filing of petition under section 482 cr.p.c. (Para 2)
2. assessment of legal questions regarding blood sample collection (Para 3 , 4)
3. allegations of illegal court order for blood samples (Para 5 , 7)
4. power of investigating officer under section 53 cr.p.c. (Para 8 , 14)
5. court allows blood sample collection legally (Para 16)

O R D E R

Dated this the 19th day of September, 2022 Accused Nos.1 and 2 in crime No.128 of 2016 in Kenichira Police Station, Wayanad have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayers.

“1. To call for the Original of Annexure 4 order dated 24.08.2022 in CMP No.216/2022 in SC No.219/2020 of the Special court, Mananthavadi and all records connected to it and to quash the same as illegal and unjustifiable.

2. To effectively mould the remedy and grant such other and further relief/reliefs as the petitioners may pray for from time to time and which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper to grant in the interests of justice”.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. Pertinent legal questions arise for consideration in this matter;

(a) whether a direction can be issued by a competent court to the accused to subject himself/themselves for blood test?

(b) Can such a direction be issued even after filing final report?

4. In this matter, after filing final report and when the Forensic Science Laboratory requested the Investigating OfÏcer to furnish the blood samples found in the materials collected from the place of occurrence, the sample of the blood to be tested also was required, the Investigating OfÏcer approached the court and sought for a direction to the accused (petitioners herein) to appear before the Investigating OfÏcer for collecting their blood samples. The learned Special Judge allowed the application after appreciating the contention raised by the Investigating OfÏcer as well as the petitioners herein, as per Annexure A4.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Annexure A4 order is illegal. Annexure A4 is intended to fabricate evidence against the petitioners and the same is not permissible under law. He further submitted that as per the letter issued by the Investigating OfÏcer to the Forensic Director, presence of bloodstain in the materials forwarded was sought to be ascertained and on finding presence of bloodstain, the same was sought to be tested for the purpose of identifying blood group, DNA etc. Thereafter, a letter was issued by the Analyst seeking further materials and acting on the said letter, initially, the Investigating OfÏcer directed the petitioners to appear before him for collecting the blood samples, on the premise that there was court order in this regard. When the petitioners noticed that no such order was passed by the court, immediately, the Investigating OfÏcer filed a petition as CMP 216 of 2022 in this regard. Annexure A2 is the copy of said petition and Annexure A3 is the copy of the objection filed by the petitioners.

6. After appraising the contentions, as per Annexure A4 dated 24.08.2022, the Special Court directed the petitioners to appear before the Investigating OfÏcer for collecting their blood samples as and when required in writing by the Investigating OfÏcer.

7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the above order is illegal and the same would prejudice the accused. Further, the same amounts to testimonial compulsion and right against self incrimination protected under article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

8. Controverting this contention, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the Investigating OfÏcer is having ample power under Section 53 of Cr.P.C. to collect blood samples and therefore, he sought assistance of the court in this regard and accordingly, Annexure A4 was passed. Since Annexure A4 does not suffer from any infirmity, the same is not liable to be interfered. He submitted further that directi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top