SISU BHAVAN Vs. JOY YOHANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Crl. M. C. has been filed by Sisu Bhavan, Sisters of Nazareth, which is an Orphanage recognized as per Annexure A certificate issued by the Central Adoption Resource Agency, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India for submission of applications to competent Courts for declaration of foreigners as guardians of Indian children under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

(2.) Taking the cue from the prosecution allegation in SC 41 of 2007 pending before the Addl. Sessions Court (Ad hoc-I), Kottayam to the effect that a child was born pursuant to the commission of the offence of rape on the 28 year old victim by the accused (Joy Yohannan) and punishable under S.376 IPC, the accused filed Crl. MP 1405 of 2007 before the Trial Court at the stage of defence evidence for a direction to the person in custody of the child to produce the child before the Director of Rajeev Gandhi Centre for Bio Technology, Thiruvananthapuram for the purpose of subjecting the child as well as the victim and the accused to a DNA test. As per order dated 20/08/2007 the learned Addl. Sessions Judge allowed the application and issued a direction to the petitioner herein namely, the Sisu Bhavan, Sisters of Nazareth to produce the child for the purpose of subjecting the child to DNA test.

(3.) The petitioner orphanage entered appearance before the Sessions Court and informed the Court that the child in question had already been placed in local adoption and that the details of the adoptive parents of the child cannot be divulged in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Lakshmi Kant Pandey's case reported in AIR 1984 SC 4691 , AIR 1986 SC 2722 and AIR 1987 SC 2323 . However, it appears that the Sessions Court was not inclined to entertain the objection raised by the Orphanage which necessitated the present Crl. MC filed by the Orphanage. During the course of consideration of the Crl. MC this Court took note of the fact that in a rape trial the question of paternity of the child was totally irrelevant and since the order passed by the Sessions Court was not questioned by the State this Court initiated suo motu Revision against the said order. That is how Crl. RP 3 of 2008 came to be registered before this Court.