The High Court · 2025

, praying that in the circumstances Petition under Section 528 of BNS riminal Petition, the High Court may stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of of the order dated 29.'1 1.2024 in be pleased to grant Stay the operation Crl.M.P.No. 256 of 2024 on the file of the ourt of the Special Judge for Trial of ditional Sessions Judge, Warangal, Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act-Cum-ll A pending disposal of the above Criminal Peti ion. ,,::=ffi+- '.;. . r' .r' r' '/ This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri VOOTUKURI RAGHUVEER, Advocate for the Petitioner and Assistant Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER i I I I THE HONOURABLE SMT. .fuSTICE K. SUJANA cRTMTNAL pprlrrotv tb L5828 of 2o24 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is fi1ed eking the Court to quash the order dated 29.11.2024 passed in C M.P.No.256 of 2024 in Crrme No.42 of 2024 by the learned Spe ia1 Judge for Trial of Cases under the SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal.

2. The brief facts of the case afe that the prosecution case involves a rape allegation against the petitioner, a former Sub- Inspector of Police, by a Woman ilIead Constable. The victim alleged that on June 15, 2024, petiti+ner trespassed into her room, threalened her with a revoiver, beat er, and committed rape. The h case was registered under Sections a9, 376(21(al(b1,324, and 506 of the IPC. The prosecution request the Court to issue summons for petitioner's appearance at the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) in Hyderabad for a DNA test. In response, counsel for the petitioner before the trial Court led a counter, denying the + allegations and arguing that obtainirirg his blood samples for DNA testing would violate his rights afainst self-incrimination and Article 21 of the Constitution. Ho'"riever, the trial Court ruled in \ 2 SI<S,J Crl.P.No.15828 of 2024 '!,lfi ::i favor of the prosecution, citing Section 53-A of the Cr.P.C, which empowers medical practitioners to collect DNA samples from the accused. The trial Court also referenced the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Selvi vs. State of Karnatakal, which held that DNA sampling doesn't face constitutional hurdles in India. The trial Court allowed the petition, issuing summons for appearance of the petitioner at the FSL for DNA testing and comparison. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal petition is fi1ed.

3. Heard Sri G. S. Prasen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated November 29, 2024, passed in Crl.M.P.No.256 of 2024, by the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act-Cum-ll Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, is wholly illegal and devoid of merits and that the trial Court failed to adequatel5, address key legal and factual issues, including the protection against self- incrimination under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution, the right to privacy under Article 27, and the lack of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the alieged crime. He further submitted that the order 'ntn 2oto sc tgu+ 3 sKs,J Crl.P.No.1582E of2024 for DNA profiling violates the consti tional rights of the petitioner and that the trial Court failed to p why DNA testing is essential to the ovide a clear justification for case of the prosecution. He { l contended that the trial Court over oked the suspicious delay in '+ the registration of the FIR and the flleged collection of evidence, which casts serious doubt on the crfdibility of the complaint. He relies on the principles of law laid wn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, emphasizing thjat any process of criminal law initiated with mala lide intentions or abuse of process of law cannot be continued and deserves t[ be quashed. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proc+edings against the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, the learneil Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that there is no ill gality in the order of the trial q Court. He argued that merely cotl[cting the samples does not prejudice the accused, as he will havf the opportunity to chailenge the evidence during the examination if witnesses. Considering that the alleged offence is heinous and grievous, scientilic evidence must be collected. It is a settled w that the accused can be directed to provide samples, and t is does not amount to self- 4 I I l l I i i I t, , l 1 rJ i: l' I i' I 4 sI(s,J crl.P.No.15828 of 2024 incrimination under Article 2O(3) of the Constitution. Therefore, he prayed to the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In light of the submissions made by both learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is observed that the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the samples collected at the scenc of offence were obtained beyond the timeline prescribed under the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). Therefore, it is argued that collecting samples frorrr lhe accused at this stage would cau se prejudice to him, as the prescribed procedure was not duly followed. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik2, has taken the view that scientific evidence, particulariy DNA testing, must be considered due to its high level of accuracy and reliability. Importantly, the Court observed that Section 112 of the Indian trvidence Act was enacted ztt a time when DNA technolos/ was not available. With the advarecement of science and its universal acceptance, the result of a DNA test, if genuine, must be considered superior to legal presumptions. The interest of justice is best served by ascertaining the truth through the most accurate means available. In this light, the presumption under Section 112, though conclusive in nature, must yield when faced u,ith scienti{ically pi-oven facts. Where there is a conflict t lzor+1 z scc szo 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.15828 of 2024 between a le gal presumption and sclen tific evidence, Lhe latter must prevail. It was further clarifi that Section 112 provides a rebuttable presumption based on lolical inference of facts, and not a legal iiction. A legal hction presunies the existence of something regardless of truth, whereas a pres ption of fact under Section 112 is contingent upon satisfaction f specihc conditions and can b be rebutted with reliable evidence su h as DNA test results. f

7. Applying the same reasoning tf the present case, there is no iilegality in directing the accused to r,[ndergo DNA testing. Further, in the case of Selvi (supra), the Hori'ble Supreme Court held that obtaining blood samples for scientific testing does not amount to self-incrimination under Arlicle 2O(3i of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner that collecting his sample would violate his rights is un{ounded.

8. Mereproceduralirregularities, such as non-compliance with certain timelines under the SOP, :annot override the need for C reliable scientific evidence in the invlestigation of serious offences The olfences alleged against the peti oner are of grave nature and require thorough investigation su+ported by modern forensic techniques

9. In view of the foregoing disc ssion and the authoritative 1r pronouncements of the Hon'ble Sup me Court, this Court finds no t t I l 6 sl<s,J Crl.P.No.1582a of 2024 illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. There are no merits in the present criminal petition seeking to quash the said order and the same is liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordir-rgly, this criminal petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 29. I1.2O24 passed in Crl.M.P.No .256 of 2024 in Crime No.42 of 2024 by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-Il Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. Sd/. S MALLIKARJUNA RAO REGISTRAR (ASsfrANr .,-- 'sEcTl '1 . The Special Judge for Trial of Cases unOer SCI$1pOA) Act- //rRUEcoPY// l\ ' I Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal.

2. The 'lstAdditional Judicial First Class Mahistrate at Jayashankar oT ON OFFICER Cum-ll Bhupalapally, Bhupalapally District

3. The Station House Officer, Kaleswaram P.S., Jayashankar Bhup alapally District.

4. One CC to SRl. VOOTUKURI RAGHUVEER Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CCs to PUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies RC/MKN HIGH COURT DATED:1510412025 ORDER CRLP.No.15828 ot 2024 ) / -.a4^';.:\ \\e- \i 4 rT, 21 AIJB 26 CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISSED ?\