A remand for further statement and defence evidence cannot reopen an already adjudicated DNA-testing application.

The petitioner was convicted by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, under Section 376 RPC in FIR No. 33/2012 of Police Station Soura, and was sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹25,000.

In appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence because the trial court had relied upon a medical certificate concerning the petitioner’s alleged sterilisation without putting that incriminating circumstance to him in his examination under Section 342 of the J&K Cr.P.C. The matter was remanded for recording the petitioner’s further statement and granting him an opportunity to lead defence evidence.

After remand, the petitioner applied for a DNA test of the child born to the prosecutrix, contending that it was essential for determining paternity and his innocence. He also sought to club that application with an earlier application dated 28 November 2014.

The trial court dismissed the application on 16 July 2025, holding that the earlier application seeking production of the child and DNA testing had already been dismissed by order dated 26 May 2018 and that a successive application for the same relief was not maintainable. The petitioner challenged that order in the present revision petition.

1. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the petitioner’s application for DNA testing of the child after the case had been remanded for recording his further statement and permitting him to lead defence evidence?

2. Whether the remand order passed in appeal authorised the petitioner to reopen the issue of DNA testing, which had already been adjudicated by the trial court?

3. Whether the trial court’s order dated 16 July 2025 warranted interference in revision?

The Court applied Section 342 of the J&K Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires that every material incriminating circumstance appearing in the prosecution evidence be put to the accused for his explanation; failure to do so may cause prejudice and justify setting aside the conviction and remanding the matter.

The Court also applied the limited scope of the appellate remand order, which directed the trial court to record the petitioner’s further statement regarding the omitted incriminating circumstances and thereafter permit him to produce defence evidence, without authorising reopening of issues already decided.

The principle against successive applications seeking substantially the same relief, after an earlier application has been adjudicated, was also applied.

The High Court held that the earlier appellate judgment was confined to curing the procedural defect arising from the trial court’s failure to put material incriminating circumstances to the petitioner under Section 342 of the J&K Cr.P.C.

Although the petitioner was given an opportunity to lead defence evidence after his further statement, that opportunity did not permit him to revive or reopen the DNA-testing request, which had already been considered and dismissed by the trial court on 26 May 2018.

The appellate court had specifically identified the remaining questions as the prosecutrix’s age and the petitioner’s capacity to perform sexual intercourse, and had not granted the petitioner’s prayer for DNA testing.

Consequently, the trial court correctly treated the subsequent application as seeking a previously adjudicated relief and dismissed it.

Finding no jurisdictional or legal error in the trial court’s order dated 16 July 2025, the High Court dismissed the revision petition.