Criminal – Supreme Court
DNA–Section 45/112 Indian Evidence Act– Direction to conduct DNA Test–Dismissal of Application–Merely because something is permissible under Law, cannot be directed as a matter of course–DNA test can violate right of privacy, thus cannot be conducted mechanically. (2) F.I.R u/s 498A/323/354/506 IPC– Allegations of dowry demand and harassment- Complainant filed application for obtaining expert opinion for DNA test comparing blood samples of her daughters with that of her husband’s brother–Basis of this application was her allegation that she was forced to develop physical relationship with husband’s brother and two children born out of that relationship–Held, substance of complaint was not related to paternity of children but whether offence of dowry committed or not–Present case can be decided without considering DNA test report–Such direction would violate privacy rights of persons subject to such tests and can be prejudicial to future of children– Application dismissed.
Date of decision–15.09.2022
Criminal – Supreme Court
Acquittal–Murder–Extra judicial confession before brother of deceased–Difficult to believe that accused would make confession before brother of deceased–Conviction set aside. — Section 302 IPC–No eye witness– Prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence–Grounds of Acquittal :- (1) Confession–Prosecution relied upon extra judicial confession of accused allegedly made before PW-2 and PW-3–PW-2 is brother of deceased and PW-3 is a close acquaintance of deceased–No evidence that accused had any relationship with both of them–Normally, an accused would make a confessional statement before a person in whom he has implicit faith–Evidence of persons before whom extra judicial confession is allegedly made, must be of sterling quality–It is difficult to believe that accused would make confession before real brother and a close acquaintance of deceased. (2) Recovery–According to PW-2 and PW-3, version of accused in extra judicial confession that he went after deceased, while he was carrying a bamboo stick and while returning, he was carrying same stick–But said stick not recovered from accused–Case of prosecution that at the instance of accused, an axe recovered which was weapon of assault–Recovery of axe at instance of accused is of no relevance. (3) Blood Group–Other circumstance against accused is that clothes on his person were stained with blood–As per Serology Report, clothes on person of deceased were having blood stains of ‘O’ group–While clothes on person of accused were having blood stains of ‘A’ group-This militates against case of prosecution that blood stains on clothes of accused were of blood of deceased–Prosecution failed to establish guilt of accused beyond a reasonable doubt–Accused acquitted.
Date of decision–08.11.2023
Criminal – Supreme Court
Acquittal-Food Adulteration-Sample of Paneer- Moisture content found more than prescribed standard–But in report of Public Analyst, it was not mentioned whether moisture content was more due to natural causes–Conviction set aside. (2) Section 16(1)(a)(i)/17 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act–Allegation that Paneer stored in shop of accused for sale and human consumption found to be adulterated–Held, as per opinion of Public Analyst, sample of Paneer did not conform to prescribed standard in respect of moisture & Milk Fat content of dry matter–An offence u/s 2(ia)(m) shall be made out if quality or purity of article falls below prescribed standard-However, proviso indicates an exception that where quality or purity of article, has fallen below prescribed standards, solely due to natural causes & beyond control of human agency, then, such article shall not be deemed to be adulterated–Report of Public Analyst says that moisture content was 77.6% and as per prescribed standard, it shall not contain more than 70%–But there is no indication as to whether moisture content was more due to natural causes–Even, milk fat content of dry matter may depend upon quality of milk & this question was also not gone into– Accused acquitted.
Date of decision–17.10.2022
