Sri Chikkaiah V. State of Karnataka, 2022, under this case the Karnataka High Court has dismissed the bail application even though there is no DNA evidence.
The Karnataka High Court has denied the accused persons' regular bail petitions, opining that a prima facie case against them had been established due to the heinous crime of rape against a deaf and dumb victim and the fact that the victim had recognised the accused persons via pictures before the Magistrate. This plea is submitted under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, requesting regular bail for the petitioner of Hunsur Rural Police Station, Mysuru, for an offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(L), 376(2)(n), 323, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
When the complainant, who is the victim's niece, went to the victim's residence to see her on July 29, 2021, she spotted the hospital card with the victim, which said that the victim was 34 weeks pregnant and that she seemed to be pregnant. When the complainant asked who was accountable for the incident by sign, the victim pointed to two homes in front of the residence. As a result, the complainant filed a complaint, and the case was filed; during the investigation, the police recorded 164 statements from the victim before the learned Magistrate, and the victim recognised two accused, who are the petitioners herein. As a result, the complainant filed a complaint. The accused people were arrested and a charge-sheet was filed following a police inquiry and identification of the images by the victim of two accused (Chikkaiah & Others – Petitioners). As a result, the current petition for regular bail has been filed.
No doubt, there is an accusation against the petitioners that they are responsible for the conduct of making the victim pregnant, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners. However, the learned counsel adamantly argues that while the 164 statement was recorded, no DNA blood sample was taken from the petitioners, and the victim has since given birth to a child. The petitioners are eligible to bail if a DNA test is not performed.
The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State contends that, first and foremost, the victim is deaf and dumb, and she created the image that these petitioners are liable; further, when the victim's declaration was documented before the learned Magistrate, she identified the photographs of two petitioners, and she is in the process of obtaining a DNA test report, as the victim recently gave birth to a child. As a result, there is adequate evidence against the petitioners.
The prosecution is primarily relying on the statement of the victim who made the statement before the learned Magistrate under Section 164(5) of the Cr.P.C. where she identified two photographs of the petitioners after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, as well as perusal of the material on record. Aside from that, her statement has been recorded, and the victim has given birth to a child as a result of the sexual act, despite the fact that the DNA report has not been presented to the Court.
The bail requests were denied by the High Court, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners may be granted an opportunity to seek this Court after receiving the DNA report.
Admissibility of DNA evidence in rape cases:
DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) is a type of molecule present in human organs such as hair, skin, and eyes. The main advantage of using a DNA test is that it is unique to each individual, unless identical twins are involved. This is comparable to how fingerprints aid in the identification of rape suspects. It is discovered by expert detectives at the scene of the alleged rape or any other important site from which the DNA may be retrieved. Saliva, Urinary, Blood, Skin Tissues, Semen, and Sweating are all used to obtain DNA.
Swami Premanand, a prominent swami, had many female students in the landmark case "Kamalanantha v. State of Tamil Nadu." One of them accused him of rape, and she became pregnant as a result. DNA tests was ordered to determine the father's paternity. Blood samples from the swami, disciple, and infant were taken and tested, leading to the swami's conviction.
"Facts essential to explain or introduce a fact in dispute or a significant fact," according to Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). Furthermore, if the IEA is observed, Sec. 45 states that expert evidence is significant, and Sec. 51 adds that it is also relevant on whatever foundation the opinion is founded. Sec. 46 is concerned with the facts surrounding the experts' opinions. As a result, based on the preceding sections, a comparison may be drawn that infers the importance of DNA profiling.
This article is written by Tanishq Chandel, of Amity Law School.