The Allahabad High Court has ruled that DNA testing of a rape survivor and her child cannot be directed as a matter of routine, stressing that such an order carries “serious social consequences.”
Justice Rajeev Misra dismissed a petition filed by one Ram Chandra Ram, who had challenged a trial court’s order rejecting his plea for conducting a DNA test of the prosecutrix and her child.
The bench observed that in cases under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (rape), the paternity of a child is not a relevant factor to be considered during trial.
“Only when compelling and unavoidable circumstances have emerged on record, which make out a cast-iron case for directing the DNA test of the prosecutrix and her child, can the court order such a test,” Justice Misra noted.
The judge emphasised that directing a DNA test involves far-reaching implications and courts must act with “care, caution and circumspection” while considering such requests.
A criminal case was registered against the applicant under Sections 376 (rape), 452 (house-trespass), 342 (wrongful confinement), 506 (criminal intimidation) of IPC and Sections 5/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Following investigation, a chargesheet was filed and the matter proceeded to trial.
After the examination of five prosecution witnesses, the accused moved an application seeking a DNA test of the survivor and her child, claiming it was necessary to determine guilt or innocence. The trial court dismissed the plea, prompting the accused to approach the high court.
Upholding the trial court’s decision, the high court held that there were no compelling circumstances justifying a DNA test in this case. It underlined that trial courts are required to adjudicate charges based on evidence presented during trial and cannot pre-empt proceedings by relying on speculative claims.
Citing previous judgments of the Supreme Court, the bench concluded that there was no “absolute necessity” in the present matter to direct DNA testing. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed on August 22.
