The Telangana High Court observed that 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 Telangana High Court considered the question whether the Convict has made out a case of procedural lapses in the conduct of the first DNA Test or whether the conclusions in the DNA Test Report give rise to unanswered questions.

The Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao observed, “In the interregnum, we cannot be oblivious to the fact that the petitioner, being a 80-year old man, continues to remain under the cloud of the impugned conviction based solely on the DNA Test result. 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 need to dispel any possibility of fabrication or foul play is of utmost importance where the life and liberty of a person convicted of an offence teeters on the evidence (the DNA Report in this case).”

Advocate P. Krishna Prakash represented the Petitioner/Convict, while Advocate Rama Chandra Reddy represented the State.

Case Brief

The Convict, aged 80 years old, was found guilty of the offence under Section 5 read with section 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2Ol2 (POCSO Acct) and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for Life and a fine of Rs.10,OOO/-.

The Convict was convicted by the Trial Court solely on the basis of the DNA Test and the conclusion drawn therefrom was that the Convict is the biological father of the foetus. The Trial Court also concluded that the DNA Test established that the Convict had committed sexual assault on the victim and that the Convict had not taken any defence denying these allegations.

Court’s Analysis

The question before the Court was whether the Convict should be permitted to undergo a second DNA Test.

The Court opined that a conviction does not extinguish the right to defend, particularly where a doubt regarding the veracity of a crucial piece of evidence has the potential of that evidence being discarded altogether.

“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”, the Court added.

The Division bench also observed that it would indeed be a suicidal move on the part of the Convict if the earlier DNA Report confirmed in the process. No person would take that risk unless he is certain of the outcome of the second test.

Accordingly, the Application was allowed and the Petitioner was allowed to take a second DNA test.

Cause Title: XYZ V. State of Telangana

Click here to read/download Order


Telanagana High CourtJustice Moushumi BhattacharyaJustice B.R. Madhusudhan Rao

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.