Case Title: Mohan Singh Vs State Of UP And Another
Bench: Justice Gautam Choudhary
Citation: Application u/s 482 No. – 1621 of 2022
The Allahabad High Court on Saturday ruled that DNA testing can be ordered routinely and only in deserving cases where a strong prima facie case is made out.
A division bench of Justice Gautam Choudhary was hearing a petition challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge.
In this case an FIR was registered by Hardev Singh in a case filed under Section 302 of IPC that Mohan Singh (applicant) misbehaved and shot his mother.
The accused filed an application under section 233 CrPC stating that the prosecution may be directed to provide the blood sample of the family members of the victim and to conduct a DNA test of the blood collected from earth May be sent to a forensic laboratory, to ensure whether the two are identical. But the said application was rejected.
The applicant's counsel Shri Gaurav Kakkar submitted that a DNA test cannot be done where there is a violation of the right to life or privacy of a person and it should be used after weighing and satisfying all the pros and cons of whether testing is warranted or not.
It was further argued that in the instant case the right to life would be violated or any stigma would be imposed on the privacy of the family members of the deceased and hence there is an extreme need for a DNA test to prove the innocence of the applicant.
The issue before the bench for consideration was:
Shri Amit Singh, the counsel for the opposite side, submitted that, if a person refuses to undergo a DNA test, he cannot be compelled/forced to do so as the informant or his family members are also required to test for DNA. cannot be forced.
The following questions were before the court:
• Can scientific knowledge be used to find the truth?
• If instructed is given to do a DNA test what will be its effect
• Can the test give life or privacy right be violated?
Considering the first issue, the High Court observed that the rejection of an application for DNA test and providing an opportunity to produce documentary or oral evidence in respect of his innocence by the Court below is nothing but an age-old practice, notwithstanding his In front of the availability of scientific methods available and therefore the scientific method should be used to find out the truth because justice is best served by truth.
Considering the second issue, the bench observed that "If the DNA is directed to be conducted and the DNA matched, the accused can be convicted. If the DNA does not match, ten convicts are released, following the established and basic principles that no innocent should be convicted, in order to arrive at a just and impartial decision of the case. If the DNA sample is not matched, the argument of innocence of the applicant will be proved and he is being falsely implicated in the present case.
Responding to the third question, the High Court observed that the DNA test has not been asked to establish the link between the applicant and the informer, but has been requested to prove the innocence of the applicant, therefore, there will be no impediment to his personal Freedom and right to privacy of the informer or his family members.
The bench observed that "DNA testing should not be routinely directed and such direction can be given only in deserving cases where a strong prima facie case is made out". Since the life of the applicant is at stake as he is accused of an offense under section 302 of the IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to ascertain and examine the veracity of the case.
In view of the above, the High Court set aside the impugned order and said that it would be in the interest of justice that DNA test can be done.