Factors to be considered by the court while deciding an application for a second DNA test

"16. For the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the Criminal Original Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, while dismissing the present Criminal Original Petition, this Court could emerge the following in the matter of ordering second DNA test.

vi) The Courts cannot compel the parties to undergo DNA test for the second time;

vii) The earlier DNA test cannot be treated as doubtful or set aside mere based on bald and vague allegations made by the party against whom the result of the said test was declared negative;

viii) When already DNA test report is available, there is no need to order second DNA test unless it is proved by the party who raised objections, that it has been exposed to reasonable degree of suspicion and the said report has been obtained by the influence of the expert who gave the report;

ix) Direction to conduct DNA test more than once cannot be granted since it would lead to unhealthy practice where the parties repeatedly seeking to send the sample till they get a favourable report and different reports may also lead to confusion;

x) DNA test report is only a piece of evidence (though of course a strong piece of evidence) in determining the paternity of a child, but it is to be noted that the said report is to be analysed along with the facts and other evidence to be adduced by the parties in support of their case. It is always open to them to raise objections regarding the DNA test during the course of trial;

xi) In order to avoid unnecessary doubts in the minds of the parties, it is necessary that the blood samples of the parties concerned are to be taken in the presence of each other and send to the lab and the entire process is to be recorded by video at the expenses of the party who is interested in such video recording."

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Cri. R.C. No. 1077 of 2018

Decided On: 03.12.2018

K. Perumal  Vs.  S. Shakiladevi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V. Parthiban, J.

Citation: MANU/TN/7629/2018

Print Page

When court should not order second DNA test?

The petitioner took a defence disputing the paternity of the child. The petitioner and the respondent were sent for DNA test to Rajeev Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology. Accordingly, Exhibit P-1 DNA typing report was obtained. The result is against the petitioner. Exhibit P-1 is now under challenge. The plea of the petitioner is that Exhibit P-1 was manipulated by the 1st respondent with the connivance of an employee in the laboratory. The allegation is denied by the 1st respondent. Therefore, without taking evidence, it is not possible to decide such dispute in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Petitioner is not entitled to the first relief. If the petitioner is serious with his allegation he has to establish the same before the court below which is empowered to set aside the same in the event the petitioner could establish his allegation of manipulation.Therefore, on a mere plea of non-access and plea of manipulation in Exhibit P1, Exhibit P1 report can not be interfered and the 1st respondent cannot be asked to go for a second test. Incidentally, I have gone through the photograph of the petitioner and the child contained in page No. 7 of Exhibit P1. The child appears to be a miniature of the petitioner. In the above circumstances, I find that it would be too harsh to ask the 1st respondent to undergo a further DNA test on a non established plea of manipulation. Therefore, 2nd relief is also not allowable. I find lack of banafides in this petition.

Kerala High Court

Shibu M.Daniel vs Diana T.George

THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2012

OP(Crl.).No. 3935 of 2011 (Q)

Citation: 2012CriLJ4276, ILR2012(3)Kerala172,

 2012 (2) KHC 619, 2012(3)KLT706

Print Page