Telangana High Court Allows Second DNA Test for POCSO Convict; Says Conviction Does Not Extinguish Right to Defend
The Telangana Excessive Court docket noticed that an accused particular person has a unbroken proper to defend himself/herself which incorporates presenting the very best proof earlier than the Court docket to show his/her innocence. A conviction doesn’t extinguish that proper, notably the place a doubt concerning the veracity of an important piece of proof has the potential of that proof being discarded altogether.
The Telangana Excessive Court docket thought-about the query whether or not the Convict has made out a case of procedural lapses within the conduct of the primary DNA Check or whether or not the conclusions within the DNA Check Report give rise to unanswered questions.
The Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao noticed, “Within the interregnum, we can’t be oblivious to the truth that the petitioner, being a 80-year outdated man, continues to stay below the cloud of the impugned conviction based mostly solely on the DNA Check outcome. An accused particular person has a unbroken proper to defend himself/herself which incorporates presenting the very best proof earlier than the Court docket to show his/her innocence. A conviction doesn’t extinguish that proper, notably the place a doubt concerning the veracity of an important piece of proof has the potential of that proof being discarded altogether. The necessity to dispel any risk of fabrication or foul play is of utmost significance the place the life and liberty of an individual convicted of an offence teeters on the proof (the DNA Report on this case).”
Advocate P. Krishna Prakash represented the Petitioner/Convict, whereas Advocate Rama Chandra Reddy represented the State.
Case Transient
The Convict, aged 80 years outdated, was discovered responsible of the offence below Part 5 learn with part 6 of The Safety of Kids from Sexual Offences Act, 2Ol2 (POCSO Acct) and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for Life and a high-quality of Rs.10,OOO/-.
The Convict was convicted by the Trial Court docket solely on the premise of the DNA Check and the conclusion drawn therefrom was that the Convict is the organic father of the foetus. The Trial Court docket additionally concluded that the DNA Check established that the Convict had dedicated sexual assault on the sufferer and that the Convict had not taken any defence denying these allegations.
Court docket’s Evaluation
The query earlier than the Court docket was whether or not the Convict ought to be permitted to bear a second DNA Check.
The Court docket opined {that a} conviction doesn’t extinguish the fitting to defend, notably the place a doubt concerning the veracity of an important piece of proof has the potential of that proof being discarded altogether.
“Due to this fact, in our view, even when there’s an iota of doubt as to the sanctity of the process or the correctness of the proof, the accused ought to be given a possibility to disprove the sooner check outcome”, the Court docket added.
The Division bench additionally noticed that it could certainly be a suicidal transfer on the a part of the Convict if the sooner DNA Report confirmed within the course of. No particular person would take that threat until he’s sure of the end result of the second check.
Accordingly, the Utility was allowed and the Petitioner was allowed to take a second DNA check.
Trigger Title: XYZ V. State of Telangana
