IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.72 of 2008 HARE SINGH @ HARENDRA KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 6.5.2008. Heard the parties. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents for DNA test on him as well as the child born of Jaldhari Kumari on 22.8.2007. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that such test would set at rest whether the petitioner committed alleged rape on the victim and the child born to her has been begotten him. It is further submitted that the learned Addl Sessions Judge 1, Samastipur while hearing the bail application had directed the Dy S.P. to have the DNA test report of the petitioner vis a vis the child born of Jandhari Kumari. He submits that section 53(a) has been incorporated by amending act 25 of 2005 making provision for DNA test which provides for examination of a person accused of rape by medical personnel as that would provide evidence as to the commission of such offence. The DNA test report would be very much piece of material evidence in establishing rape as well as whether the child begotten is of the concerned accused person or not. The request for DNA test in such a situation cannot be solely rejected on the ground that the victim has already confirmed her stand in her statement under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Similarly in course of investigation or during trial in an appropriate case a person accused of rape can also insist for DNA test. In this particular case, I find that the - 2 - Addl Sessions Judge, Samastipur vide his order dated 5.10.2007; annexure 4 has already directed for DNA test. In that view of the matter, the SDJM, Rosera would take steps for ensusring DNA test of the petitioner and the child born of Jaldhri Kumari daughter of Kailu Paswan, village Bangerhatta, PS Snghia, Distt- Samastipur as early as possible. The writ petition is thus allowed. Shashi. (S.P.Singh,J).