Back
Bars Routine for IPS Trainee in Digital Rape Case
The has quashed a trial court order directing an IPS officer trainee to undergo a in a rape investigation, holding that such tests cannot be ordered routinely. The court ruled that the prosecution must establish a specific nexus between the proposed medical examination and the offence under investigation.
Background of the Case
M. Uday Krishna Reddy, an IPS officer trainee at the , was accused of digitally penetrating a woman. Based on the complaint, the registered Crime No.824/2026 for offences under the (BNSS) and the . During investigation, the prosecution filed an application under seeking permission to produce the accused before a government hospital for a to test his potency. The trial court allowed the application, citing the gravity of the allegations and the investigating agency's right to collect incriminating material.
Aggrieved by this order, Reddy approached the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Contentions:
Senior counsel argued that the allegation was one of , not penile penetration, making the irrelevant. He highlighted that the prosecution had earlier sought police custody for the same test in Crl.M.P.No.449/2026, which was rejected because the prosecution failed to explain why the test was necessary. The subsequent application (Crl.M.P.No.461/2026) provided no new reasons or changed circumstances, effectively seeking a review of the earlier order—which is impermissible under .
Prosecution's Stand:
Public Prosecutor submitted that the was essential to determine the accused's capability to perform a sexual act and would help present a complete factual record before the court. He argued that the trial court had rightly exercised its discretion.
Complainant's Support:
Senior advocate , representing the victim, endorsed the trial court's order, stating that the investigating officer was entitled to collect all scientific evidence.
Legal Analysis by the High Court
Justice J. Sreenivas Rao examined the legal principles governing medical examinations of an accused. The court relied on three key precedents:
- (): Held that male potency testing must not be insisted upon as a routine requirement in sexual offence cases.
- (): DNA testing must satisfy the of legality, legitimate aim, and proportionality; it cannot be ordered for speculative purposes.
- (): Potency tests cannot be conducted mechanically; they require a specific and compelling necessity.
The court observed that the prosecution had not assigned any specific reasons in its later application as to how the would aid the investigation, particularly when the allegation was of . The trial court's reliance on the gravity of the allegations alone was insufficient. The court noted:
"The common principle emerging from Kajendran , R. Rajendran , and Archana Patil is that medical or scientific examinations of an accused, including potency and DNA tests, cannot be ordered routinely or mechanically. Such examinations must be based on the facts and circumstances of the particular case and satisfy the requirements of , while safeguarding the accused's under of ."
The court further held that the earlier rejection of the request in Crl.M.P.No.449/2026 created a bar, and the subsequent application without changed circumstances amounted to an .
Court's Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal petition and set aside the impugned order dated passed by the trial court. It clarified that the prosecution remains free to file a fresh application if a genuine need arises in accordance with law.
The ruling reinforces that investigative measures must be proportionate and case-specific. Routine orders for medical tests, especially when the allegation does not involve penile penetration, violate the accused's fundamental rights under .
