INAYATH ALI Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The present proceeding arises out of an FIR lodged by the defacto-complainant (respondent no.2) followed by charge-sheet pertaining to offences under Ss. 498A, 323, 354, 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the "Code"). The FIR was made against the appellants, the appellant no. 2 being her husband and the first appellant being her brother-in-law (husband's brother). Having regard to the nature of controversy involved in this proceeding, we have avoided revealing her identity in this judgment and direct the Registry to mask her identity with "XX". Her complaint mainly related to dowry allegations as well as harassment and physical violence committed on her by her husband and her in-laws. The Trial Court had proceeded in the case and several witnesses were examined, when the complainant filed an application under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with a prayer for direction for obtaining expert opinion for DNA fingerprint test comparing blood samples of two minor daughters of the respondent no.2 with that of the first appellant. The basis of this application was her allegation that she was forced to cohabit and develop a physical relationship with the appellant no. 1 and the two children were born out of that relationship. The Trial Court allowed her prayer and she, along with the appellants and the children, were directed to give blood samples to a specified hospital for obtaining an expert opinion on DNA fingerprint test.

(3.) The appellants invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh seeking invalidation of the said Order. The revisional application, however, was dismissed. The High Court held that such DNA fingerprint test was permitted under Ss. 53, 53A and 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. It was observed in the judgment of the High Court, relying on several authorities, that it does not tantamount to testimonial compulsion. It was also held by the High Court that in the event the directions were not complied with, the Court had to draw an adverse inference. The order of the Trial Court was, thus, upheld.