RICHPAL KHARRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has made extremely limited prayer before this Court. Therefore it is not necessary to deal with the facts at length.

(2.) Suffice it to say that the complainant-respondent Sanju Devi lodged a FIR against the petitioner for offence under-section 376 IPC. However subsequently she informed the Investigating Agency as well as the concerned Court that she does not wish to pursue the matter. As, according to her no offence of rape had ever taken place. Despite statement made by her before the concerned Court, despite filing of negative final report by the police by order dated 21.03.2013, the learned Magistrate has returned the file of the case back to the police with the specific direction that the police should procure the FSL report with regard to underwear and vaginal swab which was sent to it for chemical examination.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that according to Section 53-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short as 'Cr.P.C.'), once a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence of rape, the offender should be subjected to medical examination. The medical examiner is duty bound to take material from the concerned person for DNA profile. He has further contended that in case of Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana, 2011 7 SCC 130, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the provisions of Section 53-A Cr.P.C. are mandatory in nature. Therefore the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the petitioner be permitted to submit his material for DNA profile. According to him. DNA profile would clearly prove the fact that the prosecutrix was never ravished by the petitioner. Hence it would establish his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.