Investigative Lapses or Trial Stages Cannot Preclude DNA Testing and Expert Analysis Essential for Effective Adjudication

The petitioner (prosecutrix) filed an F.I.R. alleging that the accused (Opposite Party No. 2) committed rape by force on 27.9.2015 and subsequently forced an abortion on 29.7.2016

She further alleged that continued forcible physical relations, maintained through threats and obscene videos, resulted in a second pregnancy and the birth of a daughter

Following the investigation, a charge sheet was filed only against the accused, exonerating his relatives

During the trial, the accused moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to have a letter—purportedly written by the prosecutrix but denied by her during cross-examination—analyzed by a handwriting expert to prove consent

The trial court allowed this on 23.10.2024

Conversely, the trial court dismissed the prosecutrix's application for a DNA test between the accused and her daughter on 25.8.2022, citing the advanced stage of the trial and the Investigating Officer’s failure to conduct such a test during investigation

The petitioner also sought the summoning of additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed on 22.3.2021

1. Whether the trial court erred in allowing the examination of a disputed letter by a handwriting expert under Section 311 Cr.P.C. after the prosecutrix denied its authorship

2. Whether the dismissal of the application for a DNA paternity test on grounds of trial delay and investigative omission was legally sustainable

3. Whether the additional accused should be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

The Court applied Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 348 of the BNSS), which empowers the court to summon material witnesses or examine documents essential to a "just decision of the case"

It further relied on the constitutional right to a "fair trial," which includes the accused’s right to rebut prosecution evidence to prove consent in rape cases

The Court also exercised inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Section 482 Cr.P.C.) to ensure that crucial pieces of evidence, such as DNA reports, are not excluded based on procedural delays or investigative lapses

Regarding the handwriting expert, the Court reasoned that while the prosecutrix denied authorship of the letter, the accused’s defense hinges on proving consent

Excluding expert analysis of a document that could potentially establish consent would deprive the accused of a fair trial and hinder "effective and proper adjudication"

Regarding the DNA test, the Court found the trial court's reasoning—that the trial was at an "advanced stage" or that the Investigating Officer had failed to perform the test—to be insufficient grounds for rejection

The Court determined that a DNA report constitutes a "crucial piece of evidence" with a "direct bearing" on the prosecution’s allegations of paternity resulting from the alleged crime

Consequently, the scientific determination of paternity is essential to the truth-seeking process of the trial

The Court allowed the application for the DNA test, setting aside the order dated 25.8.2022, and directed the accused to provide samples as required by the trial court

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 12417 of 2025 is dismissed

Application U/S 482 No. 42067 of 2022 is allowed

Criminal Revision No. 1738 of 2021 is dismissed as withdrawn