LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

  • The Karnataka HC has recently refused to quash a DNA report which proved him to be the biological father of a child born to a victim of rape.
  • In the instant case titled Malappa vs State of Karnataka, a complaint was filed by the victim in 2016, and the police registered a case against the petitioner under 376, 504, 506, and 417 of IPC and a chargesheet was later filed.
  • An application was made to the Court, seeking permission to draw the blood of the accused for the purpose of ascertaining whether he was the biological father of the child born to the victim, who was now dead. It was allowed and the FSL report later declared him to be the father of the infant.
  • The present petition was filed seeking to quash the order which subjected the petitioner to DNA test.
  • The Hon’ble Court observed that the order for the drawing of blood would only be in violation of the doctrine of self incrimination under 20(3) if the consent of the person has been obtained by any threat. But the same is not the case here as the learned trial court Judge had explained to the accused the full import of his consent, and the same has been videographed. There was no threat and the accused gave his consent voluntarily.
  • The Court also observed that although subjecting people to DNA tests should not be done as a routine, but in deserving cases, the same can be ordered and there is no law which bars the Court from ordering the same in order to ascertain the truth.
  • On the question of violation of Article 20(3), the Court has relied on the decision in State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad wherein it was held that if the self incriminatory information has been given by the accused without any threat or compulsion, the same will not be hit by the doctrine of self incrimination envisaged in Article 20(3).
  • The Court also took note of the fact that the investigating agencies have a very tedious job of ascertaining the truth, and it was due to this reason that Section 53A was enacted by the Parliament after which it became possible to medically examine the accused in an offence of rape and ascertain the truth which would otherwise be difficult to discover.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Tags :

  Views  31  Report

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query