The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the direction issued by an investigating officer to a man to conduct a DNA Test.
His wife had filed complaint accusing him of having unnatural sex with her. He filed anticipatory bail plea which was rejected by the High Court. He approached the Supreme Court and obtained an order of no arrest, on a condition that he would cooperate with the investigation.
As part of investigation, he was directed to appear before the Investigating Officer so that the proceeding for conducting the DNA test can be conducted. Aggrieved by this, he again approached the High Court.
The prosecution submitted before the court that the slide of the wife was prepared and it was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and as per the report received from Forensic Science Laboratory, the human sperms were found in the slide. Whether the human sperms are of the accused husband or not can only be ascertained by holding the DNA test, they told the court.
Justice G.S. Ahluwalia observed that since the source for conducting the DNA test is available with the prosecution i.e. the human sperm on the anal slide of his wife, the DNA can be extracted from the said sperm and can be compared with the DNA profile of the petitioner. In fact the DNA test proposed by the prosecution may be helpful for the petitioner also. In case if it is found that the DNA profile of the sperms found in the anal slide of the prosecutrix defers from the DNA profile of the petitioner, then it would be an evidence in his favour, the court said.
The court also added that in a matrimonial dispute and in the case of rape, a direction for conducting the DNA test can be given. It also observed that the Investigating Officer is well within his right to issue notice to the petitioner under Section 53-A of Cr.P.C. for directing the petitioner to undergo the medical examination. Dismissing the plea, the court said:
"Although Section 53- A of Cr.P.C. deals with rape but in the present case also the allegations of commission of unnatural sexual act has been made and the human sperms were found in the anal slide of the prosecutrix. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that once the Supreme Court has directed the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation, then he cannot raise obstructions or objections about the manner of investigation which is being done by the Investigating Officer."