DNA testing has become a powerful forensic tool in modern criminal jurisprudence. It can conclusively link an accused to a crime or exclude him entirely. In rape cases, where the stakes involve bodily autonomy, dignity, and criminal culpability, DNA evidence may appear to be the ultimate truth-finding mechanism. However, Indian courts have consistently warned against the routine use of DNA testing, especially when it involves the prosecutrix and her child.
Allahabad High Court in Ram Chandra Ram v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:144846) Recently examined this tension. The Court emphasised that DNA testing cannot be ordered as a matter of course in rape trials, as it carries “serious social consequences.” This judgment, consistent with prior Supreme Court precedents, sheds light on the delicate balance between scientific accuracy, privacy, and social legitimacy.
This article explores the issue in depth, tracing jurisprudential development, weighing competing considerations, and analysing why DNA testing in rape cases is treated with such judicial caution.
Case of Ram Chandra Ram v. State of U.P.
The applicant, facing trial for rape under Sections 376, 452, 342, 506 IPC and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act, sought a DNA test of the prosecutrix and her child. His plea was that such a test would scientifically establish his innocence.
The trial court rejected the application, noting that:
- Cognizance had already been taken, charges framed, and several witnesses examined.
- Paternity determination was not essential to prove rape under Section 376 IPC.
- The Supreme Court had repeatedly held that DNA tests of the prosecutrix and child should not be ordered routinely but only in “exceptional circumstances.”
On challenge, the High Court upheld this reasoning. It stressed that DNA tests implicating a child’s legitimacy carry devastating social consequences. Unless compelling, unavoidable, and supported by impeccable evidence, such a direction cannot be granted.
Jurisprudential Background
Early Caution: Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993)
The Supreme Court ruled that blood tests (a precursor to DNA testing) cannot be ordered as a matter of course in paternity disputes. Strong prima facie grounds are required, and courts must consider social implications, especially for the child.
Balancing Rights: Sharda v. Dharmpal (2003)
The Court held that courts have the power to direct medical examinations, but such power must be exercised sparingly. Privacy rights and the dignity of individuals must be respected.
Privacy and Eminent Need: Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor Secretary (2010)
The Court highlighted the “eminent need” test, stating that DNA testing should only be ordered when absolutely necessary to reach a just decision, after balancing the right to privacy against the need for truth.
DNA versus Presumptions: Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Badwaik (2014)
The Court recognised DNA as scientifically accurate and capable of rebutting the presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, it acknowledged the risk of “bastardising” a child.
Reinforcing Limits: Dipanwita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy (2015)
In a marital dispute, the Court upheld a High Court order for DNA testing but allowed the wife the liberty to refuse, leaving the trial court to draw presumptions. This approach protected privacy while ensuring justice.
Recent Affirmations: Ashok Kumar v. Raj Gupta (2022), Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2024), and Ivan Rathinam v. Milan Joseph (2025)
- All reiterated the principle that DNA testing in paternity or rape-related contexts must not be ordered casually. Courts must consider the social stigma, the rights of the child, and the risk of misuse.
Why Courts Exercise Caution
1. Impact on the Child’s Legitimacy
A DNA test may establish that the child is not biologically linked to the accused or the husband. This can socially “illegitimize” the child, leading to lifelong stigma. Indian society, still conservative in many areas, attaches strong social consequences to issues of paternity.
2. Right to Privacy
DNA testing involves a bodily intrusion and disclosure of highly personal genetic information. For the prosecutrix and her child, compulsory testing may violate their privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
3. Purpose of Rape Trials
Rape is about non-consensual sexual intercourse, not paternity. The prosecution must prove absence of consent, age of prosecutrix (in POCSO), and the commission of the act. Paternity is not a legal ingredient, except in cases where pregnancy itself is the basis of evidence.
4. Possibility of Delay and Misuse
Applications for DNA testing are sometimes filed belatedly to derail ongoing trials. Ordering such tests mid-trial can stall proceedings, prejudice witnesses, and prolong justice.
5. Scientific Certainty v. Social Certainty
While DNA provides near-certain scientific results, law balances science with social policy. Courts recognize that law cannot always embrace “truth at any cost” if it inflicts disproportionate harm on innocent parties.
When Is a DNA Test Justified?
- The principle crystallised in Bhabani Prasad Jena guides courts:
- DNA testing should be ordered only if it is absolutely essential to reach the truth.
- Routine or speculative requests must be rejected.
Courts must weigh:
- Whether other evidence suffices to decide the case.
- Whether the test would advance justice or merely stigmatise.
- The consequences for the prosecutrix and child.
In rape cases, unless the prosecutrix’s pregnancy or child is the central disputed fact and no other evidence exists, DNA testing rarely meets the “eminent need” threshold.
The Social Consequences
- Bastardisation of the Child: Perhaps the gravest concern is that a child may be declared illegitimate in law and society. Even though Section 112 of the Evidence Act protects legitimacy presumptively, DNA evidence can overturn it. The stigma of illegitimacy is profound, affecting inheritance, social standing, and psychological well-being.
- Stigmatisation of the Mother: The prosecutrix may be labelled unchaste or unfaithful, especially in marital disputes. In rape cases, such testing can be weaponised to discredit the survivor.
- Community Perceptions: In conservative communities, revelations from DNA tests can lead to ostracism, honour-based violence, or familial breakdown.
- Psychological Trauma: Children, on learning later in life about the DNA result, may suffer identity crises and emotional scars.
DNA Evidence and the Quest for Truth
Despite these concerns, courts acknowledge that DNA testing is the most accurate scientific method available. It can exonerate the innocent and prevent wrongful convictions. For an accused, denial of DNA testing may feel like a denial of a chance to prove innocence.
Thus, the challenge for courts is to harmonise two competing imperatives:
- Truth must triumph – justice requires factual accuracy.
- Social stability must be preserved – justice also requires that innocent children and women are not condemned to stigma.
Conclusion
DNA tests in rape cases pose a profound dilemma: while they offer scientific certainty, they risk devastating social consequences for innocent children and women. The judiciary’s cautious approach, epitomised in Ram Chandra Ram v. State of U.P., reflects a humane balance—truth is important, but not at the cost of dignity and legitimacy.
The guiding principle is that DNA testing must never be ordered routinely. Only when a strong prima facie case demonstrates compelling necessity should courts risk the social fallout. Justice, after all, is not just about factual truth—it is about preserving the delicate fabric of human dignity, privacy, and social order.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams