"DNA Test Not Done" : High Court Acquits Murder - Accused

 "DNA Test Not Done" : High Court Acquits Murder - Accused

Sec.300 of IPC, 1860 has an exception. Exception 5 of S.300 of IPC, 1860 says that culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.

In Ayub Ali v State of Assam [2016] GCtR 4215 (Gauhati), it was noted that "the deceased was carrying pregnancy of six months (24 weeks) and, therefore, it appears that pregnancy had occurred during that period of her stay at Dimapur. Any doubt on this score could have been dispelled by the prosecution by conducting DNA test of the foetus. The motive of murder is sought to be attributed with the aforesaid pregnancy and, therefore, it was all the more essential for the prosecution to establish the identity of the person responsible for causing pregnancy of the deceased, but that was not done. While some minor lapses on the part of the prosecution will not allow a person to go scot free on the ground of faulty investigation, equally important is that the lapses, which are not minor but go to the root of the matter, may destroy the edifice of the prosecution case itself. It is appropriate to remember the well settled proposition that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof."

The accused who was convicted by Trial Court for offences related to S.302, IPC was acquitted by Hon'ble High Court. 

Ayub Ali v State of Assam [2016] GCtR 4215 (Gauhati) can be utilised in offences under S.302, IPC to argue on the issue of DNA test.

One can download entire judgment free of cost from the following link : - 

https://ghconline.gov.in/index.php/judgments-up-to-2017/

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship.