Benefit Of Acquittal Can Be Extended To Non-Appealing Co-Accused If Prosecution Case Is Found To Be Fundamentally Unreliable: Madras High Court Hindu Marriage Act | Petition For Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Serves As A Valid Defence Against Allegations Of Desertion: Kerala High Court Employee Has No Vested Right To Seek Or Retain Additional Charge; Writ Petition Not Maintainable To Challenge Its Withdrawal: Madhya Pradesh High Court Insurance Act | Insurer Cannot Waive Statutory Deadline For Premium Payment Under Bank Guarantee; No Estoppel Against Statute: NCDRC Absence Of Crime Number In Inquest Report & Discrepancy In Sec 157 CrPC Special Report Renders FIR Doubtful: Allahabad High Court MTP Act  | Termination Of Pregnancy Beyond 24 Weeks Permissible If It Involves Risk To Life Or Grave Injury To Mental Health Of The Victim: Gujarat High Court Section 174A IPC | FIR Cannot Be Quashed If Process Server Reports Indicate Failure To Serve At Ordinary Residence: Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines Insolvency Petition | Transferees Of Debtor Cannot Substitute Debtor To Rebut Allegation Of Intent To Defeat Creditors Under Section 6(b) Provincial Insolvency Act: High Court Medical Negligence | Doctor Cannot Be Held Liable For Choosing One Reasonable Course Of Treatment Over Another: Bombay High Court Cruelty | Non-Registration Of FIR Cannot Be Ground To Discredit Testimony Of Wife Seeking Divorce: Jharkhand High Court No Deception At Inception: Calcutta High Court Refuses To Revive Cheating Charges Against Borrower After One-Time Settlement Consumer Protection Act | Doctrine Of 'Caveat Emptor' Subservient To 'Caveat Venditor'; Auctioneer Liable For Sale Of Encumbered Vehicle: State Commission

“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 2:49 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