Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

“DNA Profiling Cannot Be Ordered as a Matter of Course”: Chhattisgarh High Court Rejects Applications for DNA Test in Gang Rape Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, has rejected applications for a DNA test filed by the appellants in criminal appeals concerning their conviction for gang rape. The judgment was delivered by Hon’ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon’ble Shri Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ., on 17/08/2023.

The appellants were tried and convicted for offenses under Section 376-D of the IPC, Section 4 of the POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. During the trial, they sought a DNA test of themselves, the victim, and the victim’s newly born baby, which was rejected by the Special Judge.

In their judgment, the High Court observed that “DNA profiling is a valid and reliable method for identification, but it cannot be ordered as a matter of course.” The Court further emphasized that “a direction to use DNA profiling to determine paternity is an extremely delicate and sensitive aspect and must be conducted only when eminently needed.”

The Court also noted that the baby child of the victim was neither a party in the criminal appeals nor was the paternity required to be examined. Directing a DNA test would violate the privacy right of the infant, which is a constitutionally protected right.

In conclusion, the High Court found no merit in the applications for a DNA test and rejected them accordingly. The judgment has set a precedent by emphasizing the importance of privacy rights and the careful consideration required before ordering DNA tests in legal proceedings.

 

Date of Decision: 17/08/2023

Dilesh Nishad vs State of Chhattisgarh

 

Latest Legal News