Telangana High Court Permits POCSO Convict To Undergo Second DNA Test
Allowing a rape convict to endure a second DNA check, the Telangana Excessive Courtroom stated {that a} conviction doesn’t extinguish an accused/convict’s persevering with proper to defend themselves and current very best proof to show their innocence, when there’s a doubt on veracity of essential proof like a DNA report.
The order was handed by a Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao in an utility filed in an enchantment difficult the 80-year-old man’s POCSO conviction.
The applying was filed looking for to conduct a second DNA check on the convict who had been convicted beneath part 5 & 6 of POCSO and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for Life. It looked for comparability of the contemporary samples with the samples earlier drawn and preserved by the prosecution.
“The problem to the impugned judgment will probably be examined on its deserves and the proof positioned earlier than us. Within the interregnum, we can’t be oblivious to the truth that the petitioner, being a 80-year-old man, continues to stay beneath the cloud of the impugned conviction based mostly solely on the DNA Check end result. An accused particular person has a unbroken proper to defend himself/herself which incorporates presenting the absolute best proof earlier than the Courtroom to show his/her innocence. A conviction doesn’t extinguish that proper, notably the place a doubt concerning the veracity of a vital piece of proof has the potential of that proof being discarded altogether. The necessity to dispel any chance 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),” the bench stated.
Background
The enchantment arose from a conviction in a POSCO case, whereby the appellant was convicted to life in jail on account of the DNA proof discovered towards him. The petitioner’s title didn’t function within the FIR dated 24.09.2021, it named solely second accused as perpetrator.
The appellant was the neighbour whose title was subsequently added based mostly on the minor woman’s assertion earlier than the Sub Inspector of Police and throughout the Medico-Authorized Examination carried out by the Medical Officer.
The appellant was convicted by the Trial Courtroom solely on the premise of the DNA Check and the conclusion drawn therefrom was that he’s the organic father of the foetus. The Trial Courtroom additionally concluded that the DNA Check established that the accused had dedicated sexual assault on the sufferer.
Through the pendency of the enchantment towards conviction, the person filed an utility looking for contemporary DNA evaluation on the bottom of procedural irregularities.
The prosecution didn’t oppose the appliance; nonetheless, it said that the forensic proof was conclusive and pointed in the direction of the appellant.
Findings
The Bench stated that the DNA report talked about that it was a conclusive check. It noticed, “It is very important do not forget that the one definitive conclusion which can be drawn in instances of paternity is when the DNA Check end result doesn’t match; in such instances, the id of the particular person will not be established. Nonetheless, the opposite can not quantity to a ‘conclusion’: Kamti Devi Vs. Poshi Ram1”.
The court docket stated that the questions requested on behalf of the accused in relation to the DNA Check Report are enough to warrant a second examination.
The appellant had argued {that a} single check (DNA) requires solely a microscopic amount (0.5 to 1.0 nanograms of DNA). Nonetheless the proof of the P.W.9 (medical physician) confirmed that 100 grams of tissue of the precise femur bone of the foetus was handed over to the Investigating Officer.
“Not one of the questions have been satisfactorily answered by the Prosecution. The gaps should be addressed to the Courtroom’s satisfaction, particularly the place the complete case of the prosecution rests on the findings within the DNA Report,” it stated.
Whereas, permitting the appliance, the Bench additionally famous:
“We can not additionally low cost the acute danger taken by the petitioner in requesting for a second DNA Check. It will certainly be a suicidal transfer on the a part of the petitioner had the petitioner to topic himself to a second check and have the sooner DNA Report confirmed within the course of. No particular person would take that danger until he’s sure of the result of the second check. This truth alone persuades the Courtroom to permit the appliance.”
Allowing the appellant to take a second DNA Check by providing contemporary blood pattern, the court docket additionally stated that the second DNA Check to be carried out on the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics CDFD, Uppal, Hyderabad, in view of the apprehension expressed on behalf of the petitioner with regard to the style of conducting the earlier check.
“The petitioner shall be at liberty to strategy the involved Judicial Justice of the Peace for acceptable instructions on the Medical Officer for drawing contemporary samples for conducting the second DNA Check. The DNA Testing course of shall be accomplished inside eight weeks from the date of receipt of a replica of this order. The petitioner shall bear the bills incurred for the DNA Check. The petitioner shall even be at liberty to file a crucial utility upon receipt of the DNA Check Report, if required,” it stated.
IA. 1 of 2025 in CrlA 305 of 2025
counsel for the appellant: Krishna Prakash
Counsel for State: APP Rama Chandra Reddy.
