Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.30 seconds)Rohit Shekhar vs Shri Narayan Dutt Tiwari & Anr. on 23 September, 2011
19. Furthermore, the applicant's refusal to undergo the DNA
test, a procedure deemed essential for determining paternity
and safeguarding the child's welfare, could warrant an adverse
inference under Section 114, Illustration (h) of the Indian
Evidence Act. This provision allows the court to infer that
evidence which could be and is not produced would if
::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2024 20:30:39 :::CIS
16
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8285 )
produced, be unfavourable to the person withholding it. In
Rohit Shekhar v. Narayan Dutt Tiwari 2011 SCC OnLine Delhi
4076, the Delhi High Court affirmed this principle, stating that
refusal to undergo a DNA test in a paternity dispute can lead to
.
Union Of India & Others vs M/S. G.T.C. Industries Limited on 27 March, 2003
13. I must also refer back to the substance of the decision in
Sharda V. Dharmpal (supra), which upheld the authority of a
civil court to order a medical examination in the exercise of
the inherent powers vested in it by Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908. The same reasoning cannot be readily
applied in the criminal context. Despite the absence of a
statutory basis, it is tenable to hold that criminal courts
should be allowed to direct the impugned tests with the
subject's consent, keeping in mind that there is no statutory
prohibition against them either.
Section 125 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 125 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Sodhi Transport Co. & Anr. Etc. Etc vs State Of U.P. & Anr. Etc. Etc on 20 March, 1986
55. A presumption is not in itself evidence but only makes a
prima facie case for parties in whose favour it exists (see Sodhi
Transport Co. v. State of U.P. [(1986) 2 SCC 486: 1986 SCC (Tax)
208]). As far back as in Damisetti Ramchendruduv. Damisetti
Janakiramanna [AIR 1920 PC 84] it was held that presumption
cannot displace adequate evidence. The Supreme Court also
in Mohanlal Shamji Soniv.Union of India [1991 Supp (1) SCC 271:
Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik vs Lata Nandlal Badwaik & Anr on 6 January, 2014
In the case of Nandlal
Wasudeo Badwaik Vs. Lata Nandlal Badwaik & Anr (2014) 2 SCC
576, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 17, highlighted the
reliability and scientific accuracy of DNA tests. The Court
emphasized that while Section 112 of the Evidence Act creates
a presumption of conclusive proof under certain conditions,
::: Downloaded on - 11/09/2024 20:30:39 :::CIS
15
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:8285 )
this presumption is rebuttable. The Supreme Court asserted
that in the interest of justice, the truth must be ascertained
using the best available science, stating: - "In our opinion,
when there is a conflict between a conclusive proof envisaged
.
Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs Union Of India And Another on 22 February, 1991
The Supreme Court also
in Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 271
held that it is the rule of law in evidence that the best available
evidence should be brought before the Court to prove a fact or
.
Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes & Ors vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D) Tr.Lrs.& Ors on 21 March, 2012
the points in issue and the Court ought to take an active role in
the proceedings in finding the truth and administering justice.
Recently in Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack
de Sequeria (Dead), 2012 (3) SCALE 550, it was reiterated that
the truth is the guiding star and the quest in the judicial
process and the voyage of trial. The trend world over of full
disclosure by the parties and deployment of powers to ensure
that the scope of factual controversy is minimized was
noticed. We are therefore of the opinion that adverse inference
from non-compliance cannot be a substitute to the
enforceability of a direction for DNA testing. The valuable
right of the appellant under the said direction, to prove his
paternity through such DNA testing cannot be taken away by
asking the appellant to be satisfied with the comparatively
weak 'adverse inference'.