In which cases DNA Profiling can be ordered by the Court. Important judgments on the above referred point.

1. 1/8 H S Mulia
In which cases DNA test can be ordered
1. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13 – DNA Test
– Divorce Petition – petitioner claiming DNA Test
of himself and child born to wife to substantiate
allegations of infidelity – DNA test is the only
way to substantiate or dislodge allegations of
infidelity – court can pass an order of DNA test.
1.1. Dipanwita Roy v/s RonobrotoRoy, AIR 2015
SC 418.
2. Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.112 ­ Paternity of
child ­ DNA test ­ Section 112 of the Evidence Act
was enacted at a time when the modern scientific
advancement and DNA test were not even in
contemplation of the Legislature. The result of
DNA test is said to be scientifically accurate.
Although Section 112 raises a presumption of
conclusive proof on satisfaction of the conditions
enumerated therein but the same is rebuttable. The
presumption may afford legitimate means of
arriving at an affirmative legal conclusion. While
the truth or fact is known, there is no need or
room for any presumption. Where there is evidence
to the contrary, the presumption is rebuttable and
must yield to proof. Interest of justice is best
served by ascertaining the truth and the court
should be furnished with the best available
science and may not be left to bank upon
presumptions, there is distinction between a legal
fiction and the presumption of a fact. Legal
fiction assumes existence of a fact which may not
really exist. However presumption of a fact
depends on satisfaction of certain circumstances.
Those circumstances logically would lead to the
fact sought to be presumed. Section 112 of the
Evidence Act does not create a legal fiction but
provides for presumption.

2. 2/8 H S Mulia
2.1. Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal
Badwaik, AIR 2014 SC 932.
3. Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S.125(1) ­ Evidence
Act (1 of 1872), S.45 ­ Maintenance ­ Claim by
wife and daughter ­ Total denial of marriage and
paternity by husband ­ In such case, only
alternative left is to prove relationship through
scientific examination ­ DNA test directed to be
conducted by Court.
3.1. Madharapu Prashu Ram v. Shaik Jainbhee,
2013 CR LJ 1077.
4. Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S.125 ­
Maintenance ­ Claim of maintenance for
illegitimate male child ­ Father disputing
paternity of child ­ Parties agreed to resolve
dispute through DNA test ­ DNA report was
negative, petitioner not found biological father
of child ­ In such circumstances claim for
maintenance not tenable against alleged father of
child.
4.1. Gobinda Neogi v. Smt. Jhuma Rani Saha,
2012 CR LJ 1897.
5. Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.112 ­ Paternity of
child ­ Proof ­ Husband went abroad in Oct. 2005
and returned only on 1­5­2007 ­ Child born on 18­
1­2008 ­ Average duration of pregnancy is 266 days
from conception ­ Considering date of conception
as 1­5­2007 or within few days after return of
husband and calculating date of confinement, there
was every possibility for having wife conceived
from husband after his return from abroad and
having delivery of full grown baby because date of
delivery was on 263rd day from 1st date of access
­ Considering photographs child appeared to be
miniature of husband ­ Directing for second test
not proper as plea of non­access and manipulation

3. 3/8 H S Mulia
of DNA typing report not established.
5.1. Shibu M. Daniel v. Diana T. George, 2012
CR LJ 4276.
6. Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.112, S.45 ­ DNA
test ­ Petition for ­ Filed by Petitioner No. 1
for DNA test of her daughter/petitioner No. 2 ­
Petitioner No. 1 was legally married wife of
opposite party ­ During maintenance proceedings,
request for DNA test was made ­ Stand of opposite
party that at no point of time he established
sexual relation with petitioner No. 1 after their
marriage since he had no access to her ­ And
petitioner No. 2 was born to petitioner No. 1 from
earlier wedlock ­ No clear and satisfactory proof
of non­access ­ Order passed by Family Court
rejecting request for DNA test to establish
paternity ­ Is, therefore, liable to be set aside.
6.1. Babita Devi @ Babali v. State of
Jharkhand, 2011 CrLJ 3643.
7. Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S.53A ­ arrest ­
rape ­ Examination of person accused of rape ­
Procedure of getting DNA test or analysis and
matching of semen of accused ­ Is necessary to
make it a foolproof case.
7.1. Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana,
2011 CrLJ 4274.
8. Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S.53A (inserted by
Act 25 of 2005) ­ self­incrimination ­
examination of accused ­ RAPE ­ Testimonial
compulsion ­ Person accused of an offence of rape
­ Taking sample of blood of accused without his
consent for purpose of DNA test ­ Not testimonial
compulsion ­ Will not incriminate him ­ Not
violative of Art.20(3) ­ S.53­A of Criminal P.C.
not ultra vires of Constitution.
8.1. Halappa v. State of Karnataka, 2010 CrLJ

4. 4/8 H S Mulia
4341.
9. Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.45 ­ DNA test ­
Dispute in respect of parentage of minor girl ­
Serious allegations were levelled against
technical officer who took blood sample of parties
at Centre for DNA Finger Printing and Diagnostics
(CDFD) ­ As parties have made all kinds of wild
allegations, first DNA test conducted in matter
deserves to be ignored ­ In view of letter written
by CDFD tendering apology, order for second DNA
test is proper. But Second DNA test ­ It cannot be
ordered at choice of place of one of parties i.e.
husband.
9.1. Amar Sharma v. Smt. Seema Sharma, 2008
CRLJ 3445. ­ Vishal Motising Vasava v. State of
Gujarat, (2004) Cri LJ 3086 (Guj) relied upon,
wherein it is held that ­ DNA test ­ Order for
conducting of second DNA test not illegal or
without jurisdiction ­ However, order for
conducting such test at particular laboratory, on
request of complainant, would be illegal.
10.In Goutam Kundu v. State of W. B. and another,
AIR 1993 SC 2295, following guidelines given for
conducting DNA profile:­
(1) That Courts in India cannot order blood test
as a matter of course.
(2) Wherever applications are made for such prayer
in order to have roving inquiry, the prayer for
blood test cannot be entertained.
(3) There must be a strong prima facie case in
that the husband must establish non­access in
order to dispel the presumption arising under S.
112 of the Evidence Act.
(4) The Court must carefully examine as to what
would be the consequence of ordering the blood
test' whether it will have the effect of branding
a child as a bastard and the mother as an unchaste

5. 5/8 H S Mulia
woman.
(5) No one can be compelled to give sample of
blood for analysis.
11. Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.45, S.112 ­ DNA
test ­ Maintenance claim by respondent­wife ­
Petitioner denied marriage with respondent and
paternity of child ­ Court can ask him to undergo
test, which will set at rest dispute regarding
paternity ­ Impugned order directing petitioner to
undergo DNA test – Proper.
11.1. Mothyukuri Shivakumar @ Chitti Babu v.
Mothukuri Narayanamma, 2008 CrLJ 4183.
12. Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.112 ­ EVIDENCE ­
MAXIMS ­ Presumption as to legitimacy ­ DNA test
to rebut presumption ­ Maxim "Pater est quem
nuptiae demonstrant" (father is one whom marriage
indicates) ­ Child born during valid marriage is
conclusive proof of legitimacy unless strong and
cogent evidence is led to prove otherwise ­
Husband joining duties in Border Security Force ­
Returning home to find wife pregnant ­ No cogent
evidence led to show that husband did not have
access to wife ­ Even pleadings in that regard
were vague ­ Law requires strict proof to rebut
presumption ­ In absence of such, prayer for DNA
test cannot be allowed on vague pleadings.
12.1. Heera Singh v. State of U.P., 2005 CR LJ
3222.
13.Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.45 , S.112 ­
Petition for determining paternity by DNA test ­
Maintenance proceedings ­ Party disputing
paternity of child has to prove his 'non­access'
with mother of child during relevant time ­
Presumption under S. 112 will have to be displaced
by leading strong preponderance of evidence and
not by mere filing a petition for determining the

6. 6/8 H S Mulia
paternity by medical tests i.e. DNA ­ Order
allowing petition is liable to be set aside.
13.1. Smt. Didde Sundara Mani v. Didde Venkata
Subbarao, 2005 CRLJ 3618.
14.(A) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S.125 ­ Scope
of proceedings ­ Solemnisation of marriage between
parties ­ Exactly 10 months gap in marriage of
parties and birth of child ­ Such period is
sufficient gestation period regarding birth of
child out of valid marriage ­ Strong presumption
under S. 112 of Evidence Act arises about
legitimacy of child ­ Plea by husband that wife
was leading adulterous life and therefore prayer
for DNA test ­ Not permissible.
14.1. Partha Majumdar v. Smt. Sharmistha
Majumdar, 2005 CRLJ 3834.
15. Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S.166B ­
Investigation on request of foreign authority ­
Appellant was a suspect of murder in Canada ­
Canadian Authorities requested Ministry of Home
Affairs, Govt. of India to interview appellant and
obtain on "voluntary basis" his statement and his
blood for DNA analysis in a manner acceptable to
Canadian Court ­ Appellant was not willing to make
his statement or give his blood samples ­ In such
case CBI cannot take recourse to Section 166­B and
compel appellant to make statement or give blood
samples.
15.1. Narinder Singh Bogarh v. State of Punjab,
2004 CRLJ 1446 (SC).
16.(A) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.156 ­
Investigation ­ Conduct of DNA finger printing
test ­ Accused cannot be permitted to put his own
expert either to participate in such investigation
or to watch such investigation ­ Therefore, prayer
by accused to engage DNA Forensic of their own

7. 7/8 H S Mulia
choice or to appoint an observer ­ Cannot be
granted ­ It may prejudice defence or prosecution
because it would amount to interference in process
of investigation.
16.1. Chandan Panalal Jaiswal v. State of
Gujarat, 2004 CRLJ 2992 (Guj).
17. Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.112 ­ Legitimacy
of child ­ Determination ­ Maintainance
proceedings ­ Claim by wife and her minor child ­
Father denying paternity of child ­ Court cannot
compel father to submit himself to DNA test.
17.1. Syed Mohd. Ghouse v. Noorunnisa Begum,
2001 CRLJ 2028.
18. Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.112 ­ Evidence of
legitimacy ­ Paternity of child ­ Blood test ­ No
one can be compelled to undergo blood test ­ Blood
test should be conducted only with consent of the
person.
18.1. Sajeera v. P. K. Salim, 2000 CRLJ 1208.
19. Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S.125 ­
Maintenance ­ Grant of ­ Claim made by destitute
wife and her minor child ­ Husband denying
existence of marriage and parenthood of minor
child ­ Marriage between parties proved by strong
evidence regarding ceremony of marriage ­ Moreover
defiant stand of husband in refusing to undergo
DNA test leading to strong prima facie
satisfaction as to existence of marriage and
paternity of minor child ­ Grant of maintenance to
wife and child ­ Was proper.
19.1. K. Selvaraj alias Surendran, Surendra
Vilasom Veedu v. P. Jayakumary, 2000 CRLJ 4748.
20. Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S.125 ­
Maintenance ­ Application for by illegitimate son
­ Proof of parenthood ­ Petitioner's claim that

8. 8/8 H S Mulia
respondent was his putative father ­ Result of DNA
test concluding that respondent was biological
father of petitioner ­ Respondent, thus held to be
putative father of petitioner ­ Liable to maintain
petitioner though he is his illegitimate son.
20.1. Anil Kumar, v. Turaka Kondala Rao, 1998
CRLJ 4279.
21. Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.112 ­ Paternity
of child ­ Evidence of non­access ­ Marriage
taking place on 8­3­1983 ­ From February, 1983
till 27­5­1983 no sexual intercourse since wife
was suffering from stomachache and problem of
menstruation ­ Wife deserting petitioner and
leaving for her parents house on 27­5­83 ­ No
cohabitation after that ­ Child born on 3­1­1984
was alleged to be through illicit relationship –
Held sufficient case made out by petitioner ­
Court can direct respondent to give blood sample
though it cannot compel her to do so ­ But Court
can draw adverse inference from refusal to give
blood sample.
21.1. Sadashiv Mallikarjun Kheradkar, v. Smt.
Nandini Sadashiv Kheradkar, 1995 CRLJ 4090.