GOPAL GHOSHAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revisional application is the order dated 06.12.2017 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Baruipur, District- South 24 Parganas in session trial no. 3(9)17 arising from Kultali Police Station case no. 240 dated 07.04.2017 under Section 376/417 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 whereby and whereunder learned trial Judge has allowed the prayer for adjournment filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner has been accused of committing rape of a minor girl, who had given birth to a child recently due to her pregnancy. At the outset the present petitioner being accused in that case prayed for DNA test but the said prayer was refused on the ground that the victim was pregnant at the material point of time. However, in the meantime, the victim gave birth to a child. Revisional application before this Court being CRR no.3436 of 2017 was filed and a co-ordinate bench of this Court gave liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer before the trial Court. The petitioner again filed an application for DNA profiling of the victim, her child and of the petitioner and the said application was allowed by learned trial Judge relying on Section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the prosecution may be directed to serve a copy of the result of such DNA profiling. It is, further, submitted that learned trial Court has been proceeding with the trial without the result of such DNA profiling which would cause irreparable injury to the cause of accused/the petitioner.

(3.) Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State contended that learned trial Judge has erroneously relied on Section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure since no prayer was made on behalf of the prosecution for DNA profiling of the petitioner, who is an accused of a case under Section 376(2)(1)/417 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 6 of POSCO Act. It is, further, submitted that learned trial Judge has erroneously relied on Section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and such order of DNA ought not to have been passed by learned trial Judge. Learned Advocate for the State has however handed over a report from the officer in charge of Kultali Police Station where from it transpires that the DNA profiling of the petitioner as well as the victim has not yet been undertaken by the Superintendent of M.R. Bangur Hospital, Calcutta.