The Allahabad High Court observed that the DNA Test of the victim and child can be directed only when compelling and unavoidable circumstances emerged on record as such test would have serious social consequences.

An application was filed by the accused against the order of the Trial Court rejecting the application to conduct DNA Test of the victim and the child.

The Bench of Justice Rajeev Misra observed, “Moreover, the DNA test of the prosecutrix and her child has serious social consequences. Only when compelling and unavoidable circumstances have emerged on record, which make out a cast-iron case for directing DNA test of the prosecutrix and her child that Court can direct for such a test. It is on account of above that the Apex Court has repeatedly observed that Courts should exercise care, caution and circumspection, while considering an application with the prayer for DNA test of the prosecutrix and her child.”

Advocate Amit Kumar Yadav represented the Applicant.

Case Brief

The Applicant approached the High Court to quash the order whereby the application for DNA Test filed by the Applicant was rejected. The Applicant was charged under Sections 376,452,342,506 of I.P.C. & 5/6 of POCSO Act.

The Applicant filed an application to conduct the DNA Test of the victim and her child on the contention that though the birth of the child was premature yet the child was fully grown and developed, therefore, the said child was not born out of the co-habitation of the victim and the Applicant. However, the same was rejected by the Trial Court.

Court’s Observation

While referring to the decision of the apex court regarding the conduct of the DNA Test in such cases, the High Court

The Court took into account the grounds of rejecting the application by the Trial Court, i.e. The paternity of the child is not necessarily required to be ascertained nor direction for DNA test of the prosecutrix and her child can be given as a matter of course. The said findings have neither been specifically challenged nor the same could be dislodged by the learned counsel for the applicant as being illegal, perverse or erroneous. The Court opined that if the findings could not be dislodged, the conclusion cannot be altered.

Further, the Court observed, “Once the charges have been framed then Court is bound to answer the charges so framed one way or the other. Court cannot pre-empt the trial. Apart from above, the trial is at the stage of prosecution evidence i.e. Section 242 Cr.P.C. Therefore, by reason of above, Court has to ensure compliance of Sections 230 and Section 231 Cr.P.C. Therefore, by reason of above, Court below could not direct for collecting defence evidence."

The Bench emphasises that the DNA test of the prosecutrix and her child has serious social consequences. “Only when compelling and unavoidable circumstances have emerged on record, which make out a cast-iron case for directing the DNA test of the prosecutrix and her child, that the Court can direct such a test”, the Court ordered.

Accordingly, the Application was dismissed.

Cause Title: Ram Chandran Ram V. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:144846)

Click here to read/download Order


Allahabad High CourtJustice Rajeev Misra

Pridhi Chopra

    Pridhi Chopra was earlier practicing as an Advocate in Delhi. She pursued B.A. (H) English from Gargi College, University of Delhi, and subsequently pursued a degree in Law.