Karnataka High Court
G. Venkatesh vs State Of Karnataka on 21 July, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:27353
CRL.P No. 14375 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.14375 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
G.VENKATESH
S/O.LATE GOWRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT DIBBURALLI VILLAGE
SIDLAGHATTA TALUK
SIDLAGHATTA-562 105
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI V.S.HEGDE FOR
SRI B.J.ROHITH GOWDA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SIDLAGHATTA
RURAL POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
Digitally KALABURAGI-585 103
signed by B
LAVANYA 2. SRI DEVARAJA
S/O.LATE RAMANNA
Location:
HIGH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
COURT OF R/AT HANUMANTHAPURA VILLAGE
KARNATAKA SIDLAGHATTA TALUK
SIDLAGHATTA-562 105
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R-1;
R-2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:27353
CRL.P No. 14375 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.PC. (FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS) PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AND CONTINUATION OF FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.S.C.NO.120/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-
1, CHIKKABALLAPURA FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 376(2)(f), 506 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 5(1)
5(f), 6, 7, 8, 11 AND 12 OF THE POCSO ACT VIDE ANNEXURE -
C.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
"a. To Quash the charge sheet and continuation of further proceedings in case bearing Spl.S.C.No.120/2024 pending on the file of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1 at Chikkaballapura for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 506 of IPC and Sections 5(1), 5(f), 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12, of POCSO Act, the copy of which is produced as Annexure-C to meet the ends of justice and equity.
b. And also such other and further relief's as this Hon'ble Court deems fit considering -3- NC: 2025:KHC:27353 CRL.P No. 14375 of 2024 HC-KAR the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice."
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
Perused the material on record. Respondent No.2 has been served with notice on the petition and has chosen to remain unrepresented and has not contested the petition.
3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that respondent No.2-de facto complainant is the father of the minor victim girl against, whom the petitioner is said to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 506 of IPC and Sections 5(1), 5(f), 6, 7, 8, 11 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The said complaint was registered as an FIR against the petitioner-sole accused in Crime No.124/2024 dated 27.05.2024, pursuant to which, respondent No.1- Police authorities conducted the investigation and filed impugned chargesheet which is pending consideration in Spl.SC.No.120/2024 before the trial Court for the offences -4- NC: 2025:KHC:27353 CRL.P No. 14375 of 2024 HC-KAR punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 506 of IPC and Sections 5(1), 5(f), 6, 7, 8, 11 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
4. In this context, it is relevant to state that during the course of investigation, the Police authorities referred the foetus to the Forensic Science examination by way of a DNA test and report in this regard was obtained by the Police authorities, which is as under:
"GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA State Forensic Science Laboratory, Madiwala, Bengaluru 560068 Tel.No.080-22943763,080-25532910;
Fax:080-22943763 Email: [email protected] Dated: 29/07/2024 FLMS Reg.No : FSL(BE)/FLMS/6471/2024 FLMS Report No : FSL/FLMS/DNA/1241/2024 From The Director State Forensic Science Laboratory Madiwala, Bengaluru city To The Deputy Superintendent of Police Chintamani Sub-Division Chickballapura District -5- NC: 2025:KHC:27353 CRL.P No. 14375 of 2024 HC-KAR Ref: Your Letter No: SDPO/CMANI/FSL/110/2004 TEST REPORT The Articles/Documents sent in Cr No. 124/2024 of Shidlagatta Rural PS U/S U/S 376(2)(F) IPC, & U/S 5(F),8, 12 Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act-2012 wee received in the Laboratory for examination on 05/07/2024 through MARUTHI NEERAVARI CPC-391, 7353846170, Constable, The Seals found on the article/s were intact and tallied with sample seal. The description found to the article/s corresponds to that of those present in the invoice.
Materials Examined Sl.No. Article Description of IO Code Smart article/s marking Number Code 1 PAC6XRXY One sealed 1 A-1635 vacutainer (EDTA) containing sample blood collected from G.Venkatesh s/o late Gowrappa by the medical officer.
2 JMJJQGAN One sealed 2 A-1636
vacutainer
(EDTA)
containing
sample blood
collected from
Victim d/o
Devaraja by the
medical officer
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:27353
CRL.P No. 14375 of 2024
HC-KAR
Duration of Examination: 09/07/2024 to 26/07/2024 METHOD OF ANALYSIS
1. Due care was taken for maintaining the integrity of the sample by coding and decoding.
2. The DNA was extracted from the source of the samples sent.
3. The DNA was quantified from the above samples and then amplified by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using VersaPlexTM 27PY System kit containing primers for 23 autosomal STR loci gender marker Amelogenin and three Y-specific STR loci. The PCR product were separated on Genetic Analyzer (Applied Biosystems Inc.) 3500 xL and analyzed using GeneMapperTM ID-
X Software v1.6 to generate allele profile. The DNA profile result for the samples is shown in the enclosed table as Annexure I.
4. The following loci were examined; Amelogenin, D3S1358, D1S1656, D2S441, D10S1248, D13S317, Penta E, D16S539, D18S51, D2S1338, CSF1PO, Penta D, THO1, vWA, D21S11, D7S820, D5S818, TPOX, D8S1179, D12S391, D19S433, D6S1043, D22S1045, DYS391, FGA, DYS576 and DYS570.
REASON From the comprehensive analysis of the test results as shown in Annexure I, it is found that,
1. The alleles in the DNA profile result of the foetus, sent in Sl. No. 1 of FLMS/DNA/1058/2024, is consistent with having come from the offspring of Victim d/o Devaraja and matching with that of the alleles present in the DNA profile results of sample blood sent in Sl. No. 2 of FLMS/DNA/1241/2024, under 23 STR (short tandem repeats) loci.
-7-NC: 2025:KHC:27353 CRL.P No. 14375 of 2024 HC-KAR
2. The DNA profile result of the foenus, sent in Sl. No. 1 of FLMS/DNA/1058/2024, the alleles present in loci D1S1656, D2S441, Penta E, D16S539, D18S51, D2S1338, Penta D, D21S11, TPOX, D6S1043 and D22S1045 are not matching with that of the alleles present in the DNA profile result of G Venkatesh s/o late Gowrappa, sample blood sent in Sl. No. 1 of FLMS/DNA/1241/2024 under 23 STR (short tandem repeats) loci.
As per the international guidelines, the situation in which, the father and mother is lacking an allele of a system that ought to have been contributed to the child and the situation in which the child lacks either of the alleles of a system present in the alleged father and mother are instances of "definite exclusion of a father and mother from the paternity and maternity of the child".
OPINION From the DNA profile results of the samples sent, it is found that:
1. The DNA profile result of the foetus, sent in Sl.
No. 1 of FLMS/DNA/1058/2024 is matching with DNA profile result of Victim d/o Devaraja, sample blood sent in Sl. No. 2 of FLMS/DNA/1241/2004
2. The DNA profile result of the foetus, sent in Sl.No.1 of FLMS/DNA/1058/2024 is not matching with DNA profile result of G Venkatesh s/o late Gowrappa, sample blood sent in Sl.no.1 of FLMS/DNA/1241/2024.
Therefore,
1. victim d/o Devaraja, sample blood sent in Sl.No.2 of FLMS/DNA/1241/2024 is included from being the -8- NC: 2025:KHC:27353 CRL.P No. 14375 of 2024 HC-KAR biological mother of the foetus, sent in Sl.No.1 of FLMS/DNA/1058/2024.
2. G.Venkatesh s/o late Gowrappa, sample blood sent in Sl. No. 1 of FLMS/DNA/1241/2024 is excluded from being the biological father of the foetus, sent in Sl. No. 1 of FLMS/DNA/1058/2024.
NOTE
1. This report is per se admissible U/S 329 and 336 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
2. The results relate only to the items tested.
3. The test report shall not be reproduced in full except with written approval of the Laboratory.
4. In case of court evidence is required, the summons may be sent to Dr.Santosh Patil.
5. Reference working procedure Manual No. SFSL/BLR/DNA/WPM.
6. The articles may be taken back within 10 days from date of receipt of certificate of opinion, failing which the FSL would not hold responsibility for the unclaimed articles.
7. After examination, all the article/s were packed and sealed with the seal impression "FSL DNA BENGALURU".
8. The sample blood was brought in ice box.
9. The sample blood was completely utilized for DNA profile examination.
Digitally signed by: Dr.Santosh Patil, Scientific Officer SFSL Date: 31/07/2024 11:35:24 AM (FLMS)Digital Signature of Reporting Officer"
-9-NC: 2025:KHC:27353 CRL.P No. 14375 of 2024 HC-KAR
5. A perusal of the aforesaid FSL report obtained by the Police authorities would clearly indicate that while the foetus is said to match with the DNA of the victim, but the DNA test reveals that the foetus did not match with the DNA of the petitioner-accused. Under the identical circumstances, in the case of xxxxxxxx Vs. The Inspector of Police in Crl.R.C.(MD).Nos. 1195/2022 and 14962/2022 [DD.20.06.2025], the Madras High Court has held as under:
"This Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Cr.M.P.No. 480 of 2022, in Spl.S.C.No.40 of 2020, dated 11.11.2022, on the file of the Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, in dismissing the petition for discharge filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Spl.S.C.No.40 of 2020 and is facing the case for the offences under Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii), 5(n) r/w 6 of POCSO Act and under Section 506(i)I.P.C.
3. The defacto complainant lodged a complaint on 26.09.2020 before the respondent
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27353 CRL.P No. 14375 of 2024 HC-KAR police stating that her daughter aged about 13 years was studying 10 th standard in Adhanakottai Government School, that since her daughter was complaining of stomach ache for a period of one week prior to 22.09.2020, she had taken her daughter to the Government Hospital and on check up, they informed that the complainant's daughter was 6 months pregnant, that on enquiry, the victim girl informed her parents that the defacto complainant's brother's son - xxxxxxx (accused herein), who was working as a Master in xxxxxxxxxxxx Hotel, who had come back to village, by giving sweet coated words that he would marry her, had taken to a house under construction situated three houses away from the complainant's house and had sexual intercourse with her thrice and as a result of which, the victim girl has become pregnant. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the victim's mother, F.I.R., came to be registered in Cr.No.14 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 506(i) I.P.C., 5(l), 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of POCSO Act and the petitioner/accused came to be arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 26.09.2020 and subsequently he was released on bail by the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27353 CRL.P No. 14375 of 2024 HC-KAR learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai vide order dated 21.12.2020.
4. The respondent police, after completing the investigation, has laid the final report against the petitioner/accused for the alleged offences under Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii), 5(n) and 6 of POCSO Act 2012 and under Section 506(i) I.P.C., and the case was taken on file in Spl.S.C.NO.40 of 2020 on 02.03.2021 and the same is pending on the file of the Mahila Court, Pudukkottai. The learned Sessions Judge, after complying with the necessary formalities has framed charges against the petitioner/accused for the offences under Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii), 5(n) and 6 of POCSO Act 2012 and under Section 506(i) I.P.C., and that since the petitioner/accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty, ordered for trial. When the sessions case was pending for examination of prosecution side witnesses, the petitioner filed a petition invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., in Crl.O.P. (MD)No.10031 of 2021 seeking a direction to the respondent police to take necessary steps to conduct DNA test to the petitioner and to file a report before the trial Court and a learned Judge of this Court, vide
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27353 CRL.P No. 14375 of 2024 HC-KAR order dated 27.07.2021, directed the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the trial Court and on filing of such application, the Special Court was directed to consider the said petition on merits and dispose of the same in accordance with law within 15 days thereafter.
5. In pursuance of the directions of this Court, the petitioner moved an application before the trial Court and the trial Court ordered for DNA test. After taking DNA test, the Forensic Sciences Department, Chennai sent a report dated 28.02.2022 giving their opinion that the petitioner - xxxxxxx is excluded from being the father of the male child born to the victim girl. Since the DNA test was in favour of the petitioner/accused, he moved an application seeking discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C.,
6. In the discharge petition, the petitioner has taken a stand that in view of the negative DNA report, there are no prima facie evidence or materials as against the petitioner, that there existed family dispute between his family and the family of her aunt/defacto complainant for nearly 15 years and they are not in talking terms with them, that the petitioner has been studying
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27353 CRL.P No. 14375 of 2024 HC-KAR in Oxford International Institute of catering and Hotel Management at that time and he had no bad antecedent and due to the false complaint, the petitioner's study got spoiled and that since there is no prima facie or even suspicion of any type of offences committed by the petitioner, he is entitled to be discharged from the above case.
7. The respondent police filed a counter statement raising objections stating that the accused had been repeatedly sexually assaulting the victim girl from April 2020, that the petitioner/accused had committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl repeatedly as per the statements of the victim girl as we as her mother, that though the DNA report had been received holding that the petitioner is not a biological father of the child, that by itself is not sufficient to discharge the accused, as the other materials including the statements of the victim girl and others are available and that therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the DNA technology accurately identifies the criminals as DNA profiling is now a statutory scheme under Section 53-A Cr.P.C.,
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27353 CRL.P No. 14375 of 2024 HC-KAR and such profiling is a must in case of examination of rape victim as per Section 164-A Cr.P.C., and hence, DNA report deserves to be accepted unless it is absolutely dented, that the learned trial Judge failed to consider that the DNA evidence is now a predominant forensic technique for identifying criminals, that the main case of the prosecution that the petitioner was responsible for the pregnancy of the victim girl and the consequent delivery of male child came to be disproved by the DNA report and that since the very foundation of the prosecution case is stumbled, there is absolutely no scope for proceeding further and that since there are absolutely prima facie materials or evidence against the petitioner, he is entitled to get discharge from the above case.
9. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit to the present revision.
10. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the negative DNA report by itself is not a ground to discharge the accused, that the victim girl in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., before the Judicial Magistrate has implicated the petitioner
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27353 CRL.P No. 14375 of 2024 HC-KAR as the person who had committed penetrative sexual assault thrice against her, that there are other statements of the witnesses and other materials available sufficient enough to proceed with the trial, that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions has held that if the testimony of the prosecutrix is found to be reliable, that by itself may be sufficient to convict the culprit and no corroboration of her evidence is necessary, that the offence discloses in the F.I.R., alone is sufficient to trigger the presumption of guilt under Section 29 of POCSO Act and once the foundation of the prosecution case is laid by leading legally admissible evidence, it becomes incumbent on the accused to establish that he has not committed the offence and that the learned Sessions Judge by rightly appreciating the materials available on record, dismissed the discharge application and therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the trial Court.
11. Admittedly, the petitioner is the close relative of the victim girl, as he is the defacto complainant's brother's son. It is pertinent to mention that after coming to know that the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27353 CRL.P No. 14375 of 2024 HC-KAR victim girl was 6 months pregnant, the complaint came to be lodged. It s also pertinent to note that the respondent police, though charged the petitioner for the serious offences under the POCSO Act, has not chosen to conduct DNA test, but filed the final report, as if the petitioner is the only culprit and is responsible for the pregnancy of the victim girl. The prosecution has not offered any reason or explanation for not conduting DNA test during the investigation and filing of the final report without DNA test.
12. No doubt, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2017)4 SCC 393 relied on by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), that non-holding of DNA test, or failure to prove DNA test report, or DNA test result favouring the accused would not necessarily result in the failure of the prosecution case and that though a positive result of DNA test would constitute clinching evidence against the accused, if however, the result of test is in the negative ie., favouring the accused or if DNA profiling had not been done in a given case, the weight of other materials and evidence on record will still have
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27353 CRL.P No. 14375 of 2024 HC-KAR to be considered. In the above decision case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, considering the evidence available on record and in the absence of DNA report, had held that they found no reason to differ with the findings of the learned trial Judge, which came to be confirmed by the High Court insofar as the conviction of the appellant under Sections 363, 367, 376(2)(f) and 302 I.P.C.
13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukesh and another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and others reported in (2017)6 SCC 1, to point out the value of the DNA evidence and it is necessary to refer the following passages:
" DNA technology accurately identifies criminals - DNA profiling is now statutory scheme, under S.53-A Cr.P.C., and such profiling is a must in case of examination of rape victims as per S.164-C Cr.P.C., - DNA report deserves to be accepted unless it is absolutely dented - If the sampling is proper and if there is no evidence of
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27353 CRL.P No. 14375 of 2024 HC-KAR tampering of samples, DNA Test report is to be accepted.
DNA analysis is hundred percent accurate and at present a predominant forensic technique for identifying criminals (S. 53-A Cr.P.C.,) - DNA is the genetic blueprint of life - No two persons except identical twins have identical DNA
- DNA fingerprint is identical for every part of body, whether it is blood, saliva, brain, kidney or foot or any part of body
- A burning or cutting can change the mistake of a fingerprint, but DNA cannot be changed no matter whatever happens to body..
DNA technology as a part of Forensic Science and scientific discipline not only provides guidance to investigation but also supplies the Court accrued information about the tending features of identification of criminals. The recent advancement in modern biological research has regularized Forensic Science resulting in radical help in the administration of justice. In our
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27353 CRL.P No. 14375 of 2024 HC-KAR country also like several other developed and developing countries, DNA evidence is being increasingly relied upon by courts. After the amendment in the Criminal Procedure Code by the insertion of Section 53A by Act 25 of 2005, DNA profiling has now become a part of the statutory scheme. Section 53A relates to the examination of a person accused of rape by a medical practitioner.
Similarly, under Section 164A inserted by Act 25 of 2005, for medical examination of the victim of rape, the description of material taken from the person of the woman for DNA profiling is must.
From the aforesaid authorities, it is quite clear that DNA report deserves to be accepted unless it is absolutely dented and for non-acceptance of the same, it is to be established that there had been no quality control or quality assurance. If the sampling is proper and if there is no evidence as to tampering
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27353 CRL.P No. 14375 of 2024 HC-KAR of samples, the DNA test report is to be accepted."
14. A Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the legal position that DNA report deserves to be accepted unless it is absolutely dented. In the case on hand, as already pointed out, after framing of charges, at the instance of the petitioner/accused, DNA test was conducted and a report came to be filed by the Forensic Science Department concluding that the petitioner/accused is excluded from being the father of the male child born to the victim girl. It is not the case of the prosecution nor the defacto complainant that the DNA test was not conducted properly or that the DNA test report is dented. As already pointed out, it is the case of the defacto complainant and the victim girl (as per her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.,) and the case of the prosecution (after investigation) that the petitioner is the sole accused, who alone is responsible for the pregnancy of the victim girl and the consequent delivery of male child.
15. The prosecution's case has two aspects:
firstly, the accused allegedly committed
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27353 CRL.P No. 14375 of 2024 HC-KAR penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl thrice, and secondly, the victim girl became pregnant through the accused. However, the DNA report contradicts the latter claim. Despite this, the prosecution may still prove the penetrative sexual assault charge. The possibility remains that another individual impregnated the victim, resulting in the birth of a male child.
16. It is shocking that despite the negative DNA report, the prosecution has not sought court permission for further investigation or pursued identifying the individual responsible for the pregnancy. Two possibilities exist: (1) Two perpetrators, with one responsible for the pregnancy, or (2) a single perpetrator responsible for both the assault and pregnancy, potentially exonerating the petitioner. Further investigation is crucial to determine the actual culprit and the petitioner's involvement, if any.
17. POCSO offences are serious in nature, attracting more severe punishments and warrant meticulous investigation to ensure justice. Unfortunately, some cases exhibit casual and mechanical investigation, disregarding consequences. It is high time for the prosecution
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27353 CRL.P No. 14375 of 2024 HC-KAR to ensure thorough and proper investigation upholding the gravity of the cases.
18. In the case on hand, no doubt, the petitioner has filed the discharge petition after framing of charges. No doubt, it is settled law that no discharge petition can be entertained after framing of the charges. But here, the DNA test was conducted only at the instance of the petitioner/accused and the report came to be received after framing of the charges. Given the significant development of the DNA negative report, this Court is empowered to invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C. to ensure justice and fairness in the proceedings.
19. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the way in which the investigation was conducted and final report came to be filed and taking note of the negative DNA report and its consequences, this Court exercises its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the charge sheet and order re- investigation for a just outcome. Hence, the Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai District is directed to nominate a police officer in the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27353 CRL.P No. 14375 of 2024 HC-KAR nominated Deputy Superintendent of Police is directed to re- investigate the case and file a final report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As no child could be allowed to be bastardised, the respondent police is to be directed to proceed with the re- investigation and to find out the real culprit. This Court is mindful of the possibility of implicating some other person by the victim girl, complainant or by the respondent police. No doubt, Section 53-A Cr.P.C., mandates the arrest of the accused as a condition for subjecting him for medical examination. In order to avoid the arrest of the suspected persons, this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to secure the ends of justice, the Investigating Officer is directed to take steps to conduct DNA test on the suspected accused without arresting him and if the test proves positive, he is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. It is clarified that the petitioner has not been exonerated from the above case, and the Investigating Officer is directed to investigate and determine the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offences.
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27353 CRL.P No. 14375 of 2024 HC-KAR
20. With the above directions, the Criminal Revision Case stands disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed."
6. As can be seen from the aforesaid judgment of the Madras High Court that so long as the DNA in the foetus of the victim did not match with the DNA of the petitioner-accused, further proceedings as against the petitioner-accused, whose DNA did not match with the DNA of the foetus of the victim deserves to be quashed and the Police authorities are to be directed to conduct further investigation and proceed further in accordance with law.
7. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is hereby allowed;
ii) The impugned proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.120/2024 pending on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Chikkaballapur, qua the petitioner are hereby quashed;
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:27353 CRL.P No. 14375 of 2024 HC-KAR
iii) Respondent No.1-Police authorities are directed to conduct further investigation in the matter and proceed further in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20