Skip to main content

Criminal Procedure | Kathi David Raju v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Crl.A. No. 1186 of 2019 05-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | Ashok Bhushan & Navin Sinha, JJ. Crl.A. No. 1186 of 2019 (@ Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No (s). 5121 / 2018 August 05, 2019

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 53 and 482 - The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 - DNA Test - Allegation in the FIR was that the accused has obtained a fake Scheduled Caste certificate by changing his name and parentage - The police authorities without being satisfied on material collected or conducting substantial investigation have requested for DNA test which is nothing but a step towards roving and fishing enquiry on a person, his mother and brothers. It is a serious matter which should not be lightly to be resorted to without there being appropriate satisfaction for requirement of such test.





Section 53 Cr.P.C empowers the police authorities to request a medical practitioner to conduct examination of a person. There cannot be any dispute to the provision empowering police authorities to make such a request. Present is a case where without carrying out any substantial investigation, the police authorities had jumped on the conclusion that DNA test should be obtained. It was too early to request for conduct of DNA test without carrying out substantial investigation by the police authorities. The Additional Junior Civil Judge also failed to notice that in the investigation conducted by the Investigating 4 Authority no such materials have been brought on the basis of which it could have been opined that conducting DNA test is necessary for the appellant on his mother and two brothers. Thus, the order passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge dated 22.01.2016 was unsustainable. The High Court committed error in not setting aside the said order in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Petitioner's Advocate : Abhijit Sengupta

Labels:
Location: Tilak Marg, Supreme Court, Mandi House, New Delhi, Delhi 110201, India

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -  Section 138 -  failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record    whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.
Post a Comment
Read more

500+ Supreme Court of India Judgments on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Head Notes & Citations

1. Mallamma (dead) By Lrs. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [07-04-2014] 
2 comments
Read more

Adverse Possession | Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, C.A. No. 7764 of 2014 07-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |  Arun Mishra , S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah C.A. No.7764 of 2014 with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8332 - ­8333 of 2014 Radhakrishna Reddy (d) Through Lrs. v. G. Ayyavoo & Ors. August 07, 2019 Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Adverse Possession - Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well...
Post a Comment
Read more