The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has set aside a trial court order directing the accused, the complainant and their minor child to undergo DNA testing in a criminal case involving allegations under Sections 495 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice Mohammed Shaffiq held that the paternity of the child had no bearing on determining the allegation of bigamy and concealment of a previous marriage. The Court observed that a DNA test cannot be ordered merely because paternity is disputed during the trial, particularly when the result is not directly relevant to the alleged offence.
Background Of The Case
The criminal revision arose from proceedings before the Additional Mahila Court, Thanjavur. During the trial, the accused suggested in cross-examination that he was not the biological father of the minor child and also raised a claim concerning the complainant's earlier marriage.
Following those suggestions, the prosecution sought DNA testing of the accused, complainant and child. The trial court allowed the application, observing that DNA testing could conclusively determine paternity. The accused then approached the High Court challenging that direction.
The accused argued that paternity was not an essential part of the charges. He also contended that compulsory DNA testing could affect bodily autonomy, privacy and constitutional protections.
Court's Observation
Justice Mohammed Shaffiq examined the ingredients of Sections 494 and 495 IPC. The Court noted that a case under Section 495 requires proof of bigamy as well as concealment of the earlier marriage from the person entering the subsequent marriage. Paternity of a child does not form part of those requirements.
The Court then considered Supreme Court decisions governing DNA tests. It noted that such testing should not become a routine procedure and should generally be ordered only where the result is directly relevant and there is an “eminent need” for it. Other available evidence must also be considered before resorting to such an intrusive procedure.
Referring specifically to the allegations in the case, the High Court observed that “paternity is not even remotely an issue” in determining the alleged offences under Sections 494 and 495 IPC. It found that directing DNA testing for determining paternity therefore suffered from a legal misdirection.
Decision
The Madras High Court concluded that the trial court's order directing DNA testing could not be sustained. Justice Mohammed Shaffiq held that the order was “devoid of any merit” and set it aside.
The Criminal Revision Petition was accordingly disposed of. The Court imposed no costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.
