Telangana High Court
Padala Venkata Sadananda Bhavani Sen, vs The State Of Telangana, on 15 April, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.15828 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to quash the
order dated 29.11.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.256 of 2024 in Crime
No.42 of 2024 by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases
under the SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-II Additional Sessions Judge,
Warangal.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the prosecution case
involves a rape allegation against the petitioner, a former Sub-
Inspector of Police, by a Woman Head Constable. The victim
alleged that on June 15, 2024, petitioner trespassed into her room,
threatened her with a revolver, beat her, and committed rape. The
case was registered under Sections 449, 376(2)(a)(b), 324, and 506
of the IPC. The prosecution requested the Court to issue summons
for petitioner’s appearance at the Forensic Science Laboratory
(FSL) in Hyderabad for a DNA test. In response, counsel for the
petitioner before the trial Court filed a counter, denying the
allegations and arguing that obtaining his blood samples for DNA
testing would violate his rights against self-incrimination and
Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the trial Court ruled in
2
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.15828 of 2024
favor of the prosecution, citing Section 53-A of the Cr.P.C, which
empowers medical practitioners to collect DNA samples from the
accused. The trial Court also referenced the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Selvi vs. State of Karnataka 1, which
held that DNA sampling doesn’t face constitutional hurdles in
India. The trial Court allowed the petition, issuing summons for
appearance of the petitioner at the FSL for DNA testing and
comparison. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal petition
is filed.
3. Heard Sri G. S. Prasen, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
appearing on behalf of the respondent – State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order
dated November 29, 2024, passed in Crl.M.P.No.256 of 2024, by
the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act-Cum-II
Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, is wholly illegal and devoid of
merits and that the trial Court failed to adequately address key
legal and factual issues, including the protection against self-
incrimination under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution, the right to
privacy under Article 21, and the lack of direct evidence linking the
petitioner to the alleged crime. He further submitted that the order
1
AIR 2010 SC 1974
3
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.15828 of 2024
for DNA profiling violates the constitutional rights of the petitioner
and that the trial Court failed to provide a clear justification for
why DNA testing is essential to the case of the prosecution. He
contended that the trial Court overlooked the suspicious delay in
the registration of the FIR and the alleged collection of evidence,
which casts serious doubt on the credibility of the complaint. He
relies on the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and this Court, emphasizing that any process of criminal law
initiated with mala fide intentions or abuse of process of law
cannot be continued and deserves to be quashed. Therefore, he
prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner
by allowing this criminal petition.
5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, stating that there is no illegality in the order of the trial
Court. He argued that merely collecting the samples does not
prejudice the accused, as he will have the opportunity to challenge
the evidence during the examination of witnesses. Considering that
the alleged offence is heinous and grievous, scientific evidence
must be collected. It is a settled law that the accused can be
directed to provide samples, and this does not amount to self-
4
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.15828 of 2024
incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Therefore, he
prayed to the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
6. In light of the submissions made by both learned counsel
and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is observed
that the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the samples collected at the scene of offence were
obtained beyond the timeline prescribed under the Standard
Operating Procedure (SOP). Therefore, it is argued that collecting
samples from the accused at this stage would cause prejudice to
him, as the prescribed procedure was not duly followed. However,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata
Nandlal Badwaik 2 , has taken the view that scientific evidence,
particularly DNA testing, must be considered due to its high level
of accuracy and reliability. Importantly, the Court observed that
Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act was enacted at a time when
DNA technology was not available. With the advancement of
science and its universal acceptance, the result of a DNA test, if
genuine, must be considered superior to legal presumptions. The
interest of justice is best served by ascertaining the truth through
the most accurate means available. In this light, the presumption
under Section 112, though conclusive in nature, must yield when
faced with scientifically proven facts. Where there is a conflict
2
(2014) 2 SCC 576
5
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.15828 of 2024
between a legal presumption and scientific evidence, the latter
must prevail. It was further clarified that Section 112 provides a
rebuttable presumption based on logical inference of facts, and not
a legal fiction. A legal fiction presumes the existence of something
regardless of truth, whereas a presumption of fact under Section
112 is contingent upon satisfaction of specific conditions and can
be rebutted with reliable evidence such as DNA test results.
7. Applying the same reasoning to the present case, there is no
illegality in directing the accused to undergo DNA testing. Further,
in the case of Selvi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
obtaining blood samples for scientific testing does not amount to
self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner that collecting his
sample would violate his rights is unfounded.
8. Mere procedural irregularities, such as non-compliance with
certain timelines under the SOP, cannot override the need for
reliable scientific evidence in the investigation of serious offences.
The offences alleged against the petitioner are of grave nature and
require thorough investigation supported by modern forensic
techniques.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion and the authoritative
pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court finds no
6
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.15828 of 2024
illegality in the order passed by the trial Court. There are no
merits in the present criminal petition seeking to quash the said
order and the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed confirming
the order dated 29.11.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.256 of 2024 in
Crime No.42 of 2024 by the learned Special Judge for Trial of
Cases under the SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-II Additional Sessions
Judge, Warangal.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand
closed.
______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 15.04.2025
SAI
7
SKS,J
Crl.P.No.15828 of 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.15828 of 2024
Date: 15.04.2025
SAI