SHAKTIPADA CHAKARBORTY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed for quashing of the cognizance taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in connection with Chandankiyari P. S. Case No. 95/2003 (corresponding to G. R. No. 927/2003) under Sections 370, 372, 373,376/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, as revealed from the First Information Report lodged by one Nepal Bauri, the father of the O.P. No. 3, is that along with his coneighbours Yadav Singh and Raju Bouri came to Amlabad Out Post alleging that on the last day of Durga Puja in the year 2003 the co-villagers of the informant namely, Sripati Thakur and Ajit Thakur lured away the O.P. No. 3, Malti Kumari, the minor daughter of O.P. No. 2 and took her away from her house by assuring the informant, that she will be properly employed. Thereafter, the said villagers went to Sudamdih and kept the daughter of the informant confined in the house of the petitioner herein for performing household work. Subsequently, the informant went to Sudamdih to bring his daughter home and he was allowed to do so for a day. On coming home, Malti Kumari refused to go back to the house of the petitioner and informed her mother that the petitioner had tried to rape her. During course of investigation Malti Kumari and the informant alleged that on commission of rape by the accused she had become pregnant. She was duly examined medically by Dr. Laxmi Pandey, Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Chas, on 10th December, 2003.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that he made a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro on 11th December, 2003 stating that the allegations which have been brought against htm were false since he had undergone vasectomy in the year 1976-77 and was incapable of coition. Subsequently, an application was filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro stating that Malti Kumari, O.P. No. 3, had given birth to a female child on 16th May, 2004. Thereafter, in course of investigation the Investigating Officer filed a petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, for permission to conduct a D.N.A. test on the petitioner but the same was denied as the petitioner was not in judicial custody. Inasmuch as, it was not possible to collect any semen sample from the petitioner, a prayer was made by the Investigating Officer for D. N. A. test to be conducted from the blood samples of O. P. No. 3 and her new-born child. On 28th May, 2004 the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro, directed that D. N. A. test to be conducted at the cost of the petitioner and along with that the petitioner was directed to be examined by a Medical Board to ascertain as to whether he had ever been operated upon for vasectomy. However, it transpires that on several dates the O.P. No. 3 refused to give blood for D.N.A. test which would have had the effect of determining the paternity of the child. On the other hand, an application was made by the O.P. No. 2, who has since died, stating that it was not possible either for the O.P. No. 3 or the child to give a blood sample for the D. N. A. test as the health of both O.P. No. 3 and the child was not good.