Court-Ordered DNA Test of Accused Does Not by Itself Violate Article 20(3): Rajasthan High Court

The petitioner is on trial under the IPC, the POCSO Act and the SC/ST Act on a report by the father of a minor girl, who alleged physical relations under the pretext of marriage and forcible intercourse (paras 1, 2.1). After the charge-sheet and during the trial, the complainant applied on 12.07.2024 for DNA examination of the petitioner and of a girl child his daughter had delivered; the Special Judge allowed it the same day and directed the petitioner to give blood samples (para 2.2). The petitioner argued that an application under Section 53-A Cr.P.C. was not maintainable once the trial had begun, that the order violated Article 20(3), and relied on Sanjay Biswas (Calcutta High Court) (paras 4-5).

The Court noted that the Cr.P.C. was repealed from 01.07.2024; the application was not pending on that date, so it fell outside the saving clause in Section 531(2)(a) BNSS and the impugned order is deemed passed under the BNSS (paras 9-11). The proviso to Section 193(9) BNSS allows further investigation during the trial with the permission of the court trying the case (paras 12-13). Read with Sections 2(1)(l), 35 and 52, this lets the court order further investigation, including a medical examination of the accused, after the police report (paras 14-17). The child was born after the 2023 police report, so there was reasonable ground to believe a DNA comparison would afford evidence (paras 18-19). The result could go either way and would be weighed at the appreciation of evidence (para 21). The petitioner retained the choice to refuse a sample before the trial court, bearing the legal consequences, with reference to Section 119 BSA (paras 22-23). Sanjay Biswas was distinguished: there the police could have collected samples during investigation and the trial court's power to order further investigation appeared to have escaped notice (paras 27-27.2).