Deen Mohammad vs State of U.P. and Others

Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.—The matter is being heard at the admission stage and in view of the matter involved it has been considered unnecessary to issue notice to the accused opposite party No. 2 Rizwan.

In proceedings under Sections 376 and 506, I.P.C. after the statement of the accused u/s 313, Cr. P.C. has been recorded counsel for the complainant gave an application before Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 7, Gautam Budh Nagar for D.N.A. Test being conducted because a son Suhel had been born to the prosecutrix Km. Praveen as a consequence of the illicit intercourse by accused Rizwan.

The learned trial Judge on 14.7.2006, rejected the application merely on the ground that the matter could be decided without the evidence of D.N.A.

That is how this petition.

Heard Sri Moti Lal, advocate for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the opposite party State.

The reason advanced by the learned trial Judge is wholly unsustainable because evidence of D.N.A. is much more reliable, and will clinch the issue. The other evidence may or may not be convincing. The reason given by the learned Sessions Judge is virtually, no reason, for rejecting the application. In fact the learned Sessions Judge should have himself thought of the same, and initiated the procedure at his own behest, because it is the duty of the Court, to discover the truth, and no better method is currently available.

A very beneficial fallout would be that the parentage of the child would be decided, once for all, which will be necessary, in many respects for the maintenance of the male child.

The application is, therefore, allowed and the learned trial court Judge is directed to take steps to obtain D.N.A. Report in the matter expeditiously and then to proceed with the case.