Accused Has No Right To Refuse DNA Test In Rape Case; Truth Cannot Be Defeated By Evasion: Delhi High Court

“When Section 53A CrPC Mandates DNA Testing In Rape, Accused Cannot Shelter Behind Presumptions Of Legitimacy”:  Delhi High Court pronounced a landmark decision enforcing the mandatory collection of DNA samples from an accused in a rape case under Section 376 IPC. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna firmly ruled that, “The law mandates DNA testing under Section 53A Cr.P.C. in rape cases; an accused cannot obstruct justice by refusing scientific evidence,” while quashing the order of the Sessions Court that had disallowed the DNA sampling on the erroneous application of Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act. The judgment reiterates that in criminal proceedings concerning rape, DNA evidence is indispensable for fair investigation and the presumption of legitimacy of a child cannot override the statutory duty of police to collect scientific evidence.

The case originated from FIR No. 176/2021 registered at PS Saket on the complaint of Ms. X against Karan Paruthi, which was subsequently extended under Section 376 IPC against his brother, Respondent No.2, Abhishek Paruthi. The prosecutrix alleged continuous sexual assault resulting in pregnancy and the birth of a child. When the prosecution sought to obtain DNA samples of Respondent No.2 under Section 53A Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate granted permission. However, this was overturned by the Additional Sessions Judge, who invoked Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, presuming legitimacy due to the prosecutrix's marital status. Challenging this, the prosecutrix approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The accused persistently evaded investigation, refused medical cooperation, and contested the DNA sample collection, alleging harassment and misuse of legal process.

The central legal controversy revolved around the applicability of mandatory DNA testing in rape investigations under Section 53A Cr.P.C. and the validity of the presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act in a criminal trial involving rape charges.

Justice Bansal Krishna unequivocally held, “Section 53A Cr.P.C. was inserted with a specific legislative intent — to ensure scientific evidence determines guilt or innocence in sexual assault cases. The refusal of the accused to provide a DNA sample cannot be tolerated when allegations of rape have been raised.”

The Court remarked that, “Section 112 of the Evidence Act deals with matrimonial issues; it cannot be expanded to shield an accused from criminal investigation, especially when evidence shows the prosecutrix had no access to her husband.” The judgment noted that the prosecutrix and her husband were living separately since 2018, which was admitted by both parties through sworn affidavits filed in matrimonial proceedings.

In a detailed 99-paragraph judgment, the Delhi High Court dissected every legal point. On the mandatory nature of DNA testing, the Court observed:

“Section 53A Cr.P.C. provides that in cases of rape or attempt to commit rape, where there is reasonable ground to believe that examination of the accused’s person would yield evidence, it shall be lawful for the registered medical practitioner to examine the accused, and such force as is reasonably necessary may be used to procure the sample.” [Para 55]

The Court drew a clear distinction between civil disputes involving legitimacy of children and criminal investigations. It held:

“The presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 operates within the limited sphere of matrimonial rights. In cases of rape, the concern of the court is to establish truth, where science must prevail over legal fiction.” [Para 59]

The Court heavily relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik (2014) where it was observed:

“Where there is a conflict between a conclusive legal presumption and scientifically accurate DNA evidence, it is the latter that must triumph because truth is the hallmark of justice.” [Para 70]

Citing Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana (2011), Justice Bansal Krishna further emphasized:

“After the incorporation of Section 53A Cr.P.C., it has become necessary for the prosecution to obtain DNA evidence in rape cases; non-collection of this evidence may attract judicial disapproval and affect the integrity of the trial.” [Para 86]

The judgment underlined that the accused’s non-cooperation was not just a procedural lapse but a deliberate attempt to obstruct the course of justice:

“An accused cannot be permitted to subvert the criminal justice system by refusing to give a DNA sample, especially in cases where the outcome of the investigation hinges upon scientific evidence.” [Para 94]

In response to the argument of the accused regarding the potential stigma to the child’s legitimacy, the Court was categorical:

“This is not a matrimonial dispute but a case of alleged rape. The rights of the child are not in question here; the focus is on the accused’s criminal liability which can only be adjudicated with the aid of DNA evidence.” [Para 89]

The Court also issued a stern reminder of the legal consequences of disobedience:

“Orders of the Court cannot be reduced to a dead letter. Section 53A Cr.P.C. itself authorizes the use of reasonable force to secure medical evidence when an accused refuses to cooperate. Non-compliance would erode public faith in the administration of justice.” [Para 96]

The High Court decisively set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, directing Respondent No.2 to appear before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days for DNA sampling, warning that reasonable force would be sanctioned in case of non-cooperation. Justice Bansal Krishna aptly concluded:

“Truth must triumph — DNA testing is not just permissible but obligatory in rape investigations. No accused can defeat justice by refusing to subject himself to a scientific process which alone can reveal the truth.” [Para 93, 98]

Date of Decision: 17 July 2025