B' !8f?c3l IMTHE HlGHCOURTOFJUDUCWUBEOFATBIL^Pur WHATTSSGARH Criminal Reyisjon N0.%?'^ ^2006 Tushar Patit, Aged about 25 years, < S^o. Late Bhagwan Singh Patil, R/o. P.W.D. Cotony, Qtr. No. 4, Naharpara ^'\^- r.r"^w""'3). ^" "v'.-" '""""i""" (Besfdes Nahar), Anand Nagar, Raipur ^r VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh, Through: Police Statton Tetibandha, Distrtct - Raipur (CG) CRiMINALREVISIONUNOERSECTtON397READWJTHSECTEON4010F THE CODE OF CPJMINAI. PXQCE!>UBE Id B XI-HG-22 aiRKr'^n • R-<i<* 31^1 ?n+ii=t» ^f?tT ^, -S£ '3'a •<IWIf1<1, »Ti) i<1<a, fawi'My. sn^r ira^ ^;.fl^.^.^1^>wzffi&^.. •"--^ 200 HWWI Wliqi 'fN^g' SII^T •^gigT'sfspr. 31.0?, 2006 Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Shri Ash ish Shukla, 6.A. fpr - l-1eard onI.A^No. The matter is itaken up on Bot Leamed counsel'foir the<ippl| want -to press M.Cr.P. No.659/20q6 that this reyision be heard finutly disposed of. Proyer is nqtop|rt>sed. Accordingly, M.Cr.P. No. 6' pressed. .. ! ' ' . ., •' ... , • This revisidn is dipected dgaj passed by Sm* Sushrna Saworit, (F.T.G.) Raipur 1R Sessfons, Triaf i^)plicationfiledbytheapplicant dismjssed. ' ^ s • Brief;factsasdisclo^d by; ?Gr.B;€Kibf "riie prosecytrix are ^qppfleiant .lierem and hticl developei -It.is^rffieF^tcrt^^a^ leamecl^ounselfbrthe^appliCQnt.j ^torte/respdndent^ ; 8ll/20p^fef|3r urgenthearing.. o<jird.:'.- •.•:.•--- ,:;,'-\ lcanl- Submitfrthflrt-hetfoesnot for grant of stay and prays laf the stage of admissioh ond ch!<lfcl<H't ^I*-f^t ^: [^^ <f^'^l< ,. . 'i?-3if=g?T3n^f !. 9/2006 is clismissed ds nof ledmed fnsttheorderdatea 7.3.2006 4* Addl. Sesstons Jud9e No. 4/2006 wtierebythe helrein foFa:D,N.A. testhasbeen •ttie tHat startement under Section l6t she WaS in love iwitti the sexyal relutiondiip|;with him. iccuTf herein had assured ji XI-HC-22 ^6rl.4l*lld"il;:a>t)Twis, ft'ai'yy. ~3^r TRR^ , ^.-^/(t^i.Z-^SkiS'fl' . ••-^•200 iiHCTi afflRi !• 1:E 31J^I?5I K-li?b Sl^I s)>*(i<*^3 .e-'^'x-?' \ siAns^siTWHfitr . l^rosecutrix to marry her'dnd <Pue to which the pcosecutrix becdm< i|equested the dpplicant herein to ^efused soyihg that he was not th]^ f^ ^y the prosecutrix. A report UMS relibarida, RaipurJ.e; after dbouf 2 <(ppliccOTt isdlleged to}iave iridulged iri ^rosecutrix. The materialj)roduced ^hows that the prosecutrjx had given ^ompletion of investigatibn, the ^ection 376 IPC. 'Ouring the Gour's&oftrial.-an tfthe Evidence Actyide Annekupe A4 (iefore the trial Coyrt praying that D.1 terfbrmed to estdblisti parerrthoocl irosecutrix. Leamed tridl Court fhat th& proper forum -for 6.N.A. ^hereiri the question whether -the app|l t<ape $in the prosecutrix wasalone ti? V{ .Shri IIAaribJ Paranjpe, ledrned submitted that to estabtish. the defet cpntin^ed the sexudt reteB'ionship pregnant. Upon ttiis, she m|ai*ry her. but the ^applicant tther of the child conceived on 2.10.2006 ut P.5. from •the fir-sttimethe sexual intercourse with the (aefore the prosecution also birth to a rhdle; ch itd. After appejllcmt was prosecuted yh<ter yejars cti t^<"l<)1-rl ^ltil^i'l ^ Js%^ <P*1^.1< ^ ^T aipgii an^t- do IM •list pplication uncler Sectton^45 3 was filed by the applicdnt I.A. testbe permitted to be of the chilc! born -(o the the^proyer observmg wds nat -Hie fial Court lioantherein had committed decjded by oral evidence, counsel;for the- dpplicant tce of the mnocence of the. -t. XI-HC-22 ^•aiPIRP^dfiil'y'K;;!*!?!!^*? ani^r •'TSRF . . ' •t^ ••^^'•'^^^fto^ —^200 1111CTI ^Hlch »bl<il<'l''il-ftfmSI '^'fS^l'^KZR iiSlPOT 311^1—••z. . snS^i'si' f?;ira?3n^i wv 3iii5i'?siiwafN ppliccmt .that he hos; been falsely im iliaited (ay ttie pro®cu1ri?<, i.N.A. test was asure proof of tKe p|arenthood of •thechild bprn l-o the prosecutrix. Since the prose|:utrjx has alleged fhat she i^as main'tainirigsexual relationship|»;il|hthe appliamt herein^for d i|«rylong dumtion/being;in lovewith.N|m^ Itisnotacd^'ih ;axual-assault on any particular day|has been alleged. Is\ opder l|o prove his innocence, D;N.A. test alo|ne was 'tKe only altemative. ?n the other hand, Shri Ashish Shuklat leamed 6.A. for'the State has opposed'ftie prayer'. H<win9''heard the rival coritenl'j ^ns and ttfter perusing the 13 flicts and circumstances of th& case, ithis revisiprt deserves to be alowed.In the caseof the pre^nt na^ure where the prosecutrix alleged to hcn^indulged in sexual rel(rtionship^with thieoppticant ti^rein for a very long ckiration upon as^hance of mou'riage by •the ia|pliccmt) &.N.A. test would establish -^he trutb of the allegcrt-iQh te^lled by the pro^cytrix agdinst th^ applicant. It wputd alsp gi|/e an opportunity to the applicanlt herein to establish his (w<^<». The impugnedorcterwhereb^theppayerun<^ in 4$ of the?Evidence Act was refus^cl. has caused a serjous pr|ejudice to tlieapplicaht in his defgnc^. i j[Tf®^^f^: XI-HC-22 ~S:31 'tW\vW,'wSwie,'^Wl-Wy, <W^?T ^rsR ^ f^^- ^iW^iOC, "g^ 20ft HWWI g»iich te^ST' 311^1 Tt R-fi'ti.'Sfl^F sb*llcft •af^ft In the result. this revisioi 7.3.2006 passedbythe 4th -4ddl aside., The prayer under 5ecth 91'an'ted. The trial Court is dire^ '.;*33 undertaking &.N.A. lest; as prayad 4i|^-^'11ff4(¥?f^ 1^TSt ^ dl< ^3]f^iq'3II^[ >A i is allowed. The Ocdep da-ted . Sessions Judge, Raipur is set >n 45 of the Evidence Act is ted to take neoessary steps for |bytheapplicant^-——^;^, o^*