Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Bombay High Court has observed that DNA report can only be challenged if proven that there was tampering of blood samples of the accused at any stage. An appeal was filed before the Justice V.M.Deshpande by a man who was convicted in a minor rape case by the Trial Court. The Trial court has observed with all other evidence has relied on the DNA report which has stated that accused was the biological father of the aborted fetus of the victim.
There was a contention raised on behalf of accused was that there was no reason for the medical officer to preserve the aborted fetus, in absence of registration of the offense against anybody. The court has stated that “Though the offense was not registered at that point of time, preserving a fetus in a sealed condition is not unnatural, mainly during the time when the operation has been done on the minor unmarried girl. Therefore, if the Dr.Gadhe has preserved the fetus by way of a precaution then there is no violation only. On the contrary, the act shows that Doctor’s presence of mind and commitment towards the duty.”
It was also observed by the court that doctor in her evidence, had disclosed what technology she applied for obtaining DNA from both the fetus and accused. The technology which was applied by the Assistant Chemical Analyser was not at all challenged by accused was also observed by the court.
The court said, “By now, in view, the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Mukesh & Anr. vs. State For NCT Of Delhi & Ors, reported that the DNA report or scientific method to determine the paternity or sexual assault is firmly established. For such aspect, the only challenge is that there occurred tampering of blood samples of accused. If something is on the record to show that there was a possibility of tampering of blood samples of accused then only there could be some room for suspicion about DNA report. But, it will have to be judged by facts of each case.”
The appeal filed by the accused was dismissed by the court, observing that there was no contention taken that at any point of time or at any stage, there was tampering with the blood sample of accused.
86540
103860
630
114
59824