Spread the love

The Circuit bench of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court at Port Blair determined that  using Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) Section 53A, which allows a medical  professional to question a person accused of rape, to close gaps in the prosecution’s  case would violate Article 21 of the Constitution.  

Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya held that the facts of the case make it evident that  the prosecution applied for DNA profiling in an attempt to strengthen its case, and  the learned court granted the request after considering the paternity problem. Any  

deviation from the Cr.P.C. procedure or establishment of an undocumented  procedure gives rise to an assumption of arbitrariness, which infringes upon the  rights of the accused. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees everyone the right  to a trial that adheres to the legal process and embodies the idea of a fair trial. It is  not acceptable to weaken or distort the fundamentals of criminal law to support  social or civil issues that are incidental to the case. 

The court explained “The above facts constitute the lacunae of the investigation.  Ignoring the gaps in the investigation in the form of collecting material  contemplated under section 53-A gives rise to a presumption that the prosecution  sought to fill up the gaps by invoking section 53- A after the stage of investigation  was over. ..”. 

The Court upheld its authority to order medical examination of its own motion by  citing Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263. However, it should be noted  that Selvi’s paragraph 166 expressly indicates that an arrested individual may be  subjected to a medical examination while the investigation is ongoing. 

The prosecution requested in this case that blood samples be taken from the  accused, the victim girl, and the victim girl’s young child in order to perform DNA  profiling. According to the ruling, the victim girl gave permission for her blood  sample and her baby’s sample to be collected for DNA profiling when she  appeared in court on the day the order was made. 

CASE NAME : SANJAY BISWAS v. THE STATE AND ANOTHER 

NAME :RIYA KRISHNA , COURSE : BBA LLB Hons , COLLEGE  :MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, AURANGABAD, INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.


0 Comments

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *