"Serious Social Consequences": Allahabad HC Cautions Against Casual DNA Testing of Victim, Her Child In Rape Trial
The accused in a POCSO case sought DNA test of the victim and her child, arguing the child's full growth despite premature birth disproved his fatherhood
By : Salil Tiwari
Update: 2025-09-11 09:48 GMT
Allahabad High Court dismisses rape accused's plea for victim, her child's DNA test
The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by an accused in a rape case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, who sought a DNA test of the prosecutrix and her child. Court observed that such a test could not be ordered as a matter of routine, especially when the request was made at a belated stage of the trial.
"The DNA test of the prosecutrix and her child has serious social consequences. Only when compelling and unavoidable circumstances have emerged on record, which make out a cast-iron case for directing DNA test of the prosecutrix and her child that Court can direct for such a test," court said.
The bench of Justice Rajeev Misra upheld the trial court's decision, stating that the petition was not supported by "strong and clinching facts" or "impeccable evidence" to warrant the test.
An FIR was lodged by the mother of the prosecutrix on June 22, 2021. The complaint, registered at Police Station-Jamaniya, District-Ghazipur in 2021, accused Ram Chandra Ram of forcibly carrying away the complainant's minor daughter on March 29, 2021, and committing rape. The petitioner, Ram Chandra Ram, was the sole named accused in the FIR, which was filed under sections 376, 452, 342, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, along with sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act.
Following the police investigation, a charge sheet was filed on July 20, 2021, and the trial court took cognizance of the matter. Charges were subsequently framed against the accused on April 25, 2022. The trial proceeded, and by the time the application for a DNA test was filed, five prosecution witnesses had already deposed before the court.
The accused, through his counsel, Advocate Bheshaj Puri, argued that a DNA test of the prosecutrix and her child was essential to prove his innocence or guilt scientifically. The application, filed on May 18, 2023, was based on the claim that the child's premature birth but fully grown state indicated that it was not fathered by the applicant. According to the counsel for the applicant, the object of the trial is to find out the truth, and a DNA test would serve this purpose. He contended that the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Court, Ghazipur, on November 2, 2023, was "manifestly illegal and arbitrary".
However, the Additional Government Advocate for the State, vehemently opposing the application, argued that the order of the court below was "perfectly just and legal." He pointed out that the application was filed at a "very belated stage," after charges had been framed and five prosecution witnesses had already been examined. The A.G.A. contended that the court could not "pre-empt the trial" by allowing for defense evidence at the stage of prosecution evidence.
Justice Rajeev Misra concurred with the prosecution's arguments. He noted that once charges have been framed, "Court is bound to answer the charges so framed one way or the other" and "Court cannot pre-empt the trial".
Court further observed that the findings of the court below, that paternity is not a necessary factor in a Section 376 IPC offence and that a DNA test cannot be directed in a routine manner, were neither specifically challenged nor dislodged by the applicant's counsel. The judgment stated, "It is well settled that if the findings could not be dislodged, the conclusion cannot be altered".
The High Court also referred to the precedents established by the Supreme Court on the matter of DNA testing in such cases including Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal, Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women, and Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy, all of which underscore the need for courts to exercise "care, caution and circumspection" before directing a DNA test of the prosecutrix and her child.
Court concluded by stating that the application for a DNA test was not founded on "strong and clinching facts nor the facts therein were substantiated by material facts or impeccable evidence". As such, it found no "illegality" or "jurisdictional error" in the court below's decision to reject the application.
Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition, thereby affirming the trial court's order.
Case Title: Ram Chandra Ram v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Judgment Date: August 22, 2025
Bench: Justice Rajeev Misra