Rajasthan HC Orders On Accuse Can Refuse To Give Blood Sample For DNA Profiling In Rape Case
Last Updated on October 9, 2024 by NewsDesk SLC
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a court order authorizing DNA profiling of a rape accused does not in itself violate the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) because even after the court approves such an order, the decision will stand still. with the accused to refuse to provide a blood sample.
A single judge, Justice Arun Monga observed, The court heard the plea filed by the accused POCSO, in which he questioned the decision of the Special Court, which granted the complainant’s request for the DNA examination of the accused by an expert.
According to the FIR filed by the deceased’s father, the accused had intercourse with a minor and gave birth to a baby girl during the trial. Following this, the deceased’s father preferred an application before the Special Magistrate for DNA testing of the accused and the girl, which was allowed. It was against this that the accused’s initiative was filed, that it is a violation of Article 20, paragraph 3 of the Constitution.
The court noted that even after the court issued an order to that effect, the accused had the option to refuse to donate his blood and to issue a statement of such refusal. Furthermore, it was established that such a choice would trigger legal consequences, as stated in Section 119 of the BNSS, which establishes the circumstances under which the Court may assume certain facts. One of the illustrations in this section elaborates on one such circumstance,
The court may presume the existence of any fact which it considers probable, having regard to the ordinary course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business in their relation to the facts of the particular case.
