Shocking That Permission For Further Investigation Not Sought Despite Negative DNA Report: Madras High Court Orders Reinvestigation Of POCSO Case
The Madras High Court was considering a Criminal Revision against the order dismissing the petition for discharge filed under Section 227 CrPC.
Justice K. Murali Shankar, Madras High Court
In a POCSO case, the Madras High Court has recently expressed shock over the fact that the prosecution did not seek permission for further investigation after the DNA report declared the accused not to be the father of the child. The High Court asked the nominated Deputy Superintendent of Police to reinvestigate the case and file a final report.
The High Court was considering a Criminal Revision against the order dismissing the petition for discharge filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, a sole accused, had been facing the case for the offences under Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii), 5(n) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and under Section 506(i)IPC.
The Single Bench of Justice K.Murali Shankar said, “It is shocking that despite the negative DNA report, the prosecution has not sought court permission for further investigation or pursued identifying the individual responsible for the pregnancy. Two possibilities exist: (1) Two perpetrators, with one responsible for the pregnancy, or (2) a single perpetrator responsible for both the assault and pregnancy, potentially exonerating the petitioner. Further investigation is crucial to determine the actual culprit and the petitioner's involvement, if any.”
Advocate G.Karuppasamy Pandian represented the Petitioner while Government Advocate (Crl.Side) M.Aasha represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The de facto complainant lodged a complaint in the year 2020 before the respondent police stating that her daughter, aged about 13 years complained of stomach ache for one week. Later, it was found that the complainant's daughter was 6 months pregnant and on enquiry, the victim girl informed her parents that the defacto complainant's brother's son (accused), had sexual intercourse with her thrice on the pretext of marriage.
Based on the complaint lodged by the victim's mother an F.I.R., came to be registered and the Sessions Judge framed charges against the petitioner/accused for the offences under Sections 5(l), 5(j)(ii), 5(n) and 6 of POCSO Act 2012 and under Section 506(i) I.P.C. The petitioner moved an application before the trial Court, and the trial Court ordered a DNA test. The Forensic Sciences Department opined that the petitioner is excluded from being the father of the male child born to the victim girl. Since the DNA test was in favour of the petitioner/accused, he moved an application seeking discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C., but the same was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the prosecution had not offered any reason or explanation for not conducting a DNA test during the investigation and filing of the final report without a DNA test. “A Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the legal position that DNA report deserves to be accepted unless it is absolutely dented. In the case on hand, as already pointed out, after framing of charges, at the instance of the petitioner/accused, DNA test was conducted and a report came to be filed by the Forensic Science Department concluding that the petitioner/accused is excluded from being the father of the male child born to the victim girl”, it observed.
The Bench also highlighted that the prosecution must ensure a thorough and proper investigation, upholding the gravity of the POCSO cases. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the way in which the investigation was conducted and the final report came to be filed and taking note of the negative DNA report, the Court exercised its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the charge sheet and order re-investigation for a just outcome. A further direction was passed to take steps to conduct a DNA test on the suspected accused without arresting him. It was further held that if the test proved positive, then the police would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with the law.
“It is clarified that the petitioner has not been exonerated from the above case, and the Investigating Officer is directed to investigate and determine the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offences”, it said while disposing of the Revision Petition.
Cause Title: X v. The Inspector of Police (Case No. :Crl.R.C.(MD)No.1195 of 2022)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates G. Karuppasamy Pandian, A. Purantharadhasar
Respondent: Government Advocate (Crl. Side) M. Aasha