Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court

“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

 

Similar News