Telangana HC Allows Second DNA Test In POCSO Case | Right To Defend Includes Challenging Doubtful Evidence | 80-Year-Old Accused Granted Fresh Test To Dispel Doubts
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Telangana Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao held that even if there is an iota of doubt regarding the sanctity of procedure or correctness of evidence, an accused should be given an opportunity to disprove the earlier test result. The Court directed that the petitioner be permitted to undergo a second DNA test by offering fresh blood samples, to be conducted at the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, Hyderabad. The Bench disposed of the interlocutory application by allowing the plea for re-examination, clarifying that the process shall be completed within eight weeks and that expenses shall be borne by the petitioner.
The interlocutory application I.A. No. 1 of 2025 was filed in Criminal Appeal No. 305 of 2025 by the petitioner seeking permission for a second DNA test by offering fresh blood samples for comparison with the samples earlier drawn and preserved by the prosecution. The petitioner was Accused No.1 before the Trial Court in Sessions Case PCS No.70 of 2022. By judgment dated 30.12.2024, the petitioner was convicted under Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000.
The co-accused, Accused No.2, was convicted under Section 5 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment and 2 years respectively. The victim was about 16 years old on the date of incident. The petitioner, a neighbour of the victim, was added as an accused based on her statement before the Sub Inspector of Police and during medico-legal examination at Bharosa Center. His name was not mentioned in the FIR dated 24.09.2021, which named only Accused No.2.
The petitioner was convicted solely on the basis of the DNA test which concluded he was the biological father of the foetus. The Trial Court noted that the petitioner did not take any defence denying these allegations. The present application sought a second test on grounds of procedural lapses in the first examination.
The petitioner contended that the DNA report issued by Telangana State Forensic Science Laboratories on 27.12.2021, approved and countersigned by the Joint Director, lacked mandatory exhibit marking for letters from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, necessary for proving chain of custody. It was submitted that although a single test requires only 0.5 to 1.0 nanograms of DNA, the entire 100 grams of tissue from the foetus’ femur bone was used up, raising suspicion about the procedure adopted.
The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution would not be prejudiced by a second test but stated that the petitioner failed to object to the DNA report before the Trial Court or seek re-analysis. The Court noted the petitioner was 76 years old when the sample was drawn and is currently 80 years old, continuing to remain under conviction based solely on the DNA report.
The Court observed: “The only definitive conclusion which may be drawn in cases of paternity is when the DNA Test result does not match; in such cases, the identity of the person is not established. However, the contrary cannot amount to a ‘conclusion’: Kamti Devi Vs. Poshi Ram.”
It recorded: “The victim was about 16 years of age on the date of the incident. The petitioner’s name did not feature in the First Information Report dated 24.09.2021. The FIR mentioned only A.2 as the perpetrator.”
The Court stated: “The petitioner/A.1 was convicted by the Trial Court solely on the basis of the DNA Test and the conclusion drawn therefrom was that the petitioner is the biological father of the foetus.”
It observed: “The letters of the Assistant Commissioner of Police referred to in the said Report were not marked as exhibits, which is mandatory for proving the chain of custody of the DNA Test material.”
The Court recorded: “Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on material to argue that a single test requires only a microscopic quantity (0.5 to 1.0 nanograms of DNA). The evidence of P.W.9 shows that 100 grams of tissue of the right femur bone of the foetus was handed over to the Investigating Officer. Hence, the entire tissue being used up for a single examination is unusual and raises a suspicion.”
It stated: “An accused person has a continuing right to defend himself/herself which includes presenting the best possible evidence before the Court to prove his/her innocence. A conviction does not extinguish that right, particularly where a doubt regarding the veracity of a crucial piece of evidence has the potential of that evidence being discarded altogether.”
The Court further observed: “Therefore, in our view, even if there is an iota of doubt as to the sanctity of the procedure or the correctness of the evidence, the accused should be given an opportunity to disprove the earlier test result.”
Finally, it recorded: “None of the questions have been satisfactorily answered by the Prosecution. The gaps must be addressed to the Court’s satisfaction, especially where the entire case of the prosecution rests on the findings in the DNA Report.”
The Court allowed I.A. No. 1 of 2025 and permitted the petitioner to undergo a second DNA test by offering fresh blood samples.
It further directed that the second DNA test be conducted at the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics at Uppal, Hyderabad, in view of the apprehensions raised by the petitioner regarding the manner in which the previous test was conducted.
The Court stated that the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the concerned Judicial Magistrate for appropriate directions to the Medical Officer for drawing fresh samples for the second DNA test. It directed that the DNA testing process be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order and that the petitioner shall bear the expenses incurred for the DNA test.
The Court also stated that the petitioner would be at liberty to file any necessary application upon receipt of the DNA test report, if required.
Finally, the Court directed that the order be communicated to the jail authorities of the Central Prison, Chanchalguda, for deputing the Superintendent or a high-ranking officer to provide necessary assistance to the petitioner in implementing the order.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri P. Krishna Prakash, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri M. Rama Chandra Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor
Case Title: A.1 vs. State of Telangana
Case Number: I.A.No.1 of 2025 in Crl.A.No.305 of 2025
Bench: Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya, Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao
