Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

30. On the issue of use of compulsion for drawing blood and urine samples and tissue for DNA testing, the Supreme Court in Selvi has also referred to the jurisprudence from the ECHR2; made reference to 37th Explanation to section 53 Cr.P.C. states broadly that "examination" shall include "examination of blood, blood stains, semen, swabs in case of sexual offences, sputum and sweat, hair samples and finger nail clippings by the use of modern and scientific techniques including DNA profiling." In Saunders v. United Kingdom (1997) 23 ECHR 313, the European Court of Human Rights observed that right not to incriminate oneself is concerned with the will of an accused to remain silent. Use of compulsory powers in criminal procedure to obtain materials including blood samples for DNA testing from the accused, and 41st Reports of the Law Commission of India and an article by Emerson G. Spies printed in 38 Australian Law Journal 223, 231 (1964) on this issue.

31. Reference can be usefully made to also the statutory position and the jurisprudence from other jurisdictions where statutory provisions are in place and law on this issue has extensively developed.

32. The taking of blood sample for the purposes of criminal investigation has long been a sanctioned procedure in other jurisdictions. The taking of bodily samples have been opposed in criminal jurisdictions primarily on account of two main reasons, the first being the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures enshrined in Charters of which has an existence independent of the will of the suspect ,is not included in the right against self- incrimination (which is concerned with respecting the will of the accused person to remain silent). Citizens Rights in several jurisdictions. The second ground of opposition is premised on the common law principle of privilege against self- incrimination. (Ref : Schmerber v. California 384 US 757 (1966)3 ; State vs. Chase, 2001 ME 68, 785 A.2d 702 (Me. 2001)4 ; R v. Stillman (1997) 1 S.C.R. 6075 ; R. v. S.A.B. (2003) 2 S.C.R. 678, 2003 SCC 60 ; (1987) 33 C.C.C. (3d) 1 R.V. Collins)

104. Before proceeding further, it is essential to understand DNA profiling, its importance and need. It is also necessary to consider the intrusiveness of blood sample collection procedure.

105. A single Bench pronouncement of the High Court reported at AIR 2009 Madras 64 Veeran vs. Veeravarmalle & Anr. was rendered in facts which were similar to the instant case. In para 13, 14, 15 & 16 the court had discussed the nature of the DNA test in the following terms :-

―13. On-Site Medical Testing Inc., California speaks about the paternity test, wherein it is stated as follows:
‗[t]he taking of a blood sample is a relatively painless procedure and can hardly be described as a cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to the person submitting thereto.‖

179. An argument premised on intrusiveness of the order directing blood sample which was premised on the definition of "assault" in Section 351 was rejected by the Rajasthan High Court in 1971 Cri.L.J. 1405 Mahipal Maderna & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan observing thus :-