Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
A direction issued by an Investigating Officer to a man to conduct a DNA Test was upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
A complaint was filed by a wife’s man accusing him of having unnatural sex with her. The man had filed an anticipatory bail plea which was rejected by the High Court. In furtherance, an appeal was made by him in the Supreme Court & obtained an order of no arrest, on a condition that he would cooperate with the investigation.
The man was directed to appear before the Investigating Officer for proceeding further with the DNA Test. Disgruntled by this, he again approached the High Court.
The slide of the wife was prepared and send to the Forensic Science Laboratory and its report indicated of human sperms to be found in the slide, stated the prosecution. The answer to question, whether the human sperms are of the accused husband or not can only be established by holding a DNA test.
The bench comprising of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia stated that the conducting of DNA Test might help either of their party to establish their side of the case. Since the source for conducting the DNA test is available with the prosecution i.e. the human sperm on the anal slide of his wife, the DNA can be extracted from the said sperm and can be compared with the DNA profile of the petitioner. If it is found that the DNA profile of the sperms found in the anal rise of the prosecution are different from the DNA profile of the man(petitioner), then the evidence would be in his favour.
In case of matrimonial dispute & rape, the court can issue a direction for conducting the DNA Test. The Investigation Officer has a right to issue notice to the petitioner under Section 53-A of Cr.P.C. to issue directions to the petitioner to undergo medical examination.
The Bench observed:
"Although Section 53- A of Cr.P.C. deals with rape but in the present case also the allegations of commission of unnatural sexual act has been made and the human sperms were found in the anal slide of the prosecutrix. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that once the Supreme Court has directed the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation, then he cannot raise obstructions or objections about the manner of investigation which is being done by the Investigating Officer."
The plea was dismissed by the Court.
86540
103860
630
114
59824