With regard to the matching of the semen, we find it
from Taylor's 2 Edn. (1965) Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence as under:-
Spermatozoa may retain vitality (or free motion) in the body of a woman for a long period, and movement should always be looked for in wet specimens. The actual time that spermatozoa may remain alive after ejaculation cannot be precisely defined, but is usually a matter of hours. Seymour claimed to have seen movement in a fluid as much as 5 days old. The detection of dead spermatozoa in stains may be made at long periods after emission, when the fluid has been allowed to dry. Sharpe found identifiable spermatozoa often after 12 months and once after a period of 5 years. Non-motile spermatozoa were found in the v**gina after a lapse of time which must have been 3 and could have been 4 months."
44. Had such a procedure been adopted by the prosecution, then it would have been a foolproof case for it and against the Appellant.
45. Now, after the incorporation of Section 53 (A) in the Criminal ProcedureCode, w.e.f. 23.06.2006, brought to our notice by learned counsel for the Respondent-State, it has become necessary for the prosecution to go in for DNA test in such type of
cases, facilitating the prosecution to prove its case against the accused. Prior to 2006, even without the aforesaid specific provision in the Cr.P.C. prosecution could have still resorted to this procedure of getting the DNA test or analysis and matching of semen of the Appellant with that found on the undergarments of the prosecutrix to make it a fool proof case, but they did not do so, thus they must face the consequences.
Supreme Court of India
Krishan Kumar Malik vs State Of Haryana on 4 July, 2011