AFAN ANSARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav assisted by Mr. Rituraj and Ms. Priyanka Boby, learned counsel for the State.

(2.) This petition has been filed for quashing the order dtd. 15/9/2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Ranchi in POCSO Case No.89 of 2020 (Chanho P.S. Case No.89 of 2020), whereby, the petition dtd. 7/7/2022 filed on behalf of the petitioner for his DNA examination and the child is rejected, pending in the court of the learned Special Judge, POCSO, Ranchi. The prayer is also made for direction for DNA examination of the petitioner and the child in POCSO Case No.89 of 2020 (Chanho P.S. Case No.89 of 2020).

(3.) Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in a mechanical way, charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner for an alleged offence under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as under Sec. 4/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. Thereafter, the charges have been framed against the petitioner and he was put on trial. He further submitted that nine witnesses have already been examined and upon closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the petitioner was recorded under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) on 22/6/2022 in which the petitioner in its defence has pleaded his innocence. He also submitted that in that statement, the petitioner has stated that he wants DNA test. He further submitted that the petitioner has earlier moved before this Court in Cr.M.P. No.127 of 2021 challenging the cognizance order as well as the order rejecting the prayer for DNA test of the child. He submitted that although the Court has not interfered with the cognizance order, however liberty was provided to the petitioner to file a petition for conducting DNA test of the child at proper stage. He submitted that the petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, which has been rejected by the learned court vide order dtd. 15/9/2022 on flimsy ground. He further submitted that in the impugned order only on the ground of delay, the prayer for DNA test has been rejected in spite of the observation of the High Court. To buttress his arguments, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharda v. Dharmpal; [(2003) 4 SCC 493].