Calcutta High Court Permits DNA Test in Rape Case to Uphold Accused's Right to Defense
In a landmark ruling, the Calcutta High Court, led by Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul), authorized a DNA test to help the accused in a rape case substantiate his claim of "non-access" to the victim. Delivered on December 2, 2024, this judgment emphasized that denying an accused the opportunity to present evidence constitutes a misuse of the legal process.
Background of the Case
The case revolves around allegations of rape (Section 376) and cheating (Section 420) under the Indian Penal Code. The victim alleged that the accused, under the false promise of marriage, entered into a physical relationship with her, resulting in the birth of a child. The accused denied paternity and requested a DNA test to prove he had no access to the victim during the critical period.
A lower court had rejected the DNA test plea, citing potential delays in the trial. The accused then approached the High Court for relief.
Legal Questions
The court addressed key issues, including:
1. Whether denying a DNA test violated the accused's right to defend himself.
2. Balancing the welfare of the child against the need for justice.
3. The role of scientific evidence in resolving sensitive disputes.
Court’s Observations
Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) overturned the trial court's decision, asserting that the accused’s right to defend himself could not be curtailed. The court highlighted that a DNA test would either confirm or negate the accused’s access to the victim, thereby strengthening the pursuit of truth.
Quoting precedents such as Dipanwita Roy vs. Ronobroto Roy (2015), the court reiterated that scientific evidence is indispensable in cases where traditional proof may be inadequate.
The Verdict
The High Court ordered:
1. A DNA test of the accused and the child be conducted within 60 days.
2. The accused must deposit ?1,00,000 with the trial court, to be given to the victim and child if the test confirms paternity. Otherwise, the amount will be refunded.
3. The trial court should continue proceedings based on the DNA test results.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring both justice and fairness by embracing scientific evidence in sensitive cases.
Advotalks: Talk To Lawyers https://www.advotalks.com/
For More Legal Updates visit our youtube channel
