Allowed

Asha v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Madras HC22 Jun 2022CRL OP/13159/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Original Petition filed under CrPC Section 482 seeking a re-DNA test for paternity. The court directed the investigating officers and the Sessions Judge to arrange a fresh DNA test at the Central Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad, despite a previous report excluding the accused, dismissing the Government Advocate's suggestion to approach the trial court for this spec

What did the court decide?

Directed the Investigating Officer, Respondents 1 & 2, and the Learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, to subject the Petitioner and Third Respondent to a fresh DNA test through the Central F

Asha Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.13159 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 22.06.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.13159 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.7228 of 2021

Asha

... Petitioner

Versus

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Thayarkulam Kanchipuram.

¶11

2.The Inspector of Police G3, All Women Police Station Melmaruvathur Kanchipuram District (Crime No.1 of 2016)

¶12

3.Aravindan

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the Respondents to conduct re-DNA test, directing the concerned person to collect blood samples of all the three persons in the presence of one of the counsel for the Petitioner to ensure

¶15

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.13159 of 2021

¶18

the procedures are strictly adhered with in Crime No.1 of 2016 on the file of the Inspector of Police, G3 All Women Police Station, Melmaruvathur, Kanchipuram District.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Lokesh for Mr.C.Raja

¶20

For Respondents : Mr.L.Baskaran for R1 & R2

¶21

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶22

: R3- No appearance

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This petition had been filed to direct the Respondents to

¶25

conduct re-DNA test, by directing Authority concerned to collect blood samples of all the three persons in the presence of one of the counsel for the Petitioner to ensure the procedures are strictly adhered to in Crime No.1 of 2016 on the file of the Inspector of Police, G3 All Women Police

¶26

Station, Melmaruvathur, Kanchipuram District.

¶27

2/6

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.13159 of 2021

¶30

2. The Petitioner is seeking DNA test regarding the paternity of the child born to the Petitioner. When the Petitioner was a teenage girl, the third Respondent developed friendship with her and under the guise of love, he had sexual intercourse with the Petitioner, resulting in the Petitioner becoming pregnant. Hence, the parents of the Petitioner preferred a complaint with the second Respondent. Based on the complaint, First Information Report was registered under the provisions of Section 376 of IPC and under the provision of POCSO Act. Investigation proceeded and the Petitioner and the third Respondent were subjected to DNA test. After completion of investigation, final report was laid before the Learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases sunder (POCSO) Act, Chengalpattu.

¶31

3. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted

¶32

that as per the DNA report obtained from the Tamil Nadu Forensic Laboratory, the third Respondent, who is alleged to be the father of the minor child born to the Petitioner, is excluded. Not satisfied with the same, the Petitioner had approached this Court.

¶33

3/6

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.13159 of 2021

¶36

4. It is the further submission of the Learned Government

¶37

Advocate (Crl.Side) that the Petitioner herein is entitled to file a fresh petition, as per the provision of the Code of the Criminal Procedure before the trial Court, for conducting DNA test in any other Laboratory.

¶38

5. The submission of the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) eventhough found reasonable, since the Petitioner had approached this Court by claiming that the third Respondent is the father of the child, she is entitled to take fresh DNA test regarding the paternity of the child. Therefore, the Investigating Officer, the Respondents 1 & 2 are directed to subject the Petitioner and the third Respondent for fresh DNA test through the Central Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad. The Learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, is directed to proceed further based on the report of the fresh DNA test from the Central Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad.

¶39

4/6

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

Crl.O.P.No.13159 of 2021

¶42

6. With the above directions, this Petition is disposed of.

¶43

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶44

22.06.2022

¶45

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No dna

¶46

¶47

1.The Sessions Judge Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases sunder (POCSO) Act, Chengalpattu.

¶48

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Thayarkulam Kanchipuram.

¶49

3.The Inspector of Police G3, All Women Police Station Melmaruvathur Kanchipuram District (Crime No.1 of 2016)

¶50

4.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

¶51

5/6

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶53

Crl.O.P.No.13159 of 2021

¶54

SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP., J. dna

¶55

Crl.O.P.No.13159 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.7228 of 2021

¶56

22.06.2022

¶57

6/6

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Asha v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asha v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Vs the State Rep by

Sadagopan Vs the State Repby

S. Dhanabal Vs the State Rep by

Soniya Mehaboob Mohammed Vs the State Rep by

P.N.Ragavendhran Vs the Superintendent of Police

Thangamani Ramasamy Vs the State Rep by