The Bombay High Court has held that a DNA test can’t be supposed to be convincing proof in a situation of assault and must be utilised as substantiating proof. The court saw this while dismissing the bail request of a man arrested for assaulting a 14-year-old girl. The court had dismissed the bail request of the charged on July 26. However, the itemised request was made accessible on Friday.
While dismissing the bail supplication of the denounced, Justice Bharti Dangre said: “The DNA test rejects the man as the dad of the youngster, yet that doesn’t dishonour the person in question, who has repeated in her 164 explanation that the candidate effectively dedicated sex with her.” “According to the charge sheet, the man took undue advantage of the victim’s situation, who was working in his home. “There is no great explanation to doubt the declaration of the victim who has portrayed the demonstration of rape upon her at the occasion of the accused,” he said.
“The DNA test can’t be supposed to be indisputable proof concerning an assault; however, it must be utilised as substantiating proof,” he added. The minor’s folks are ghetto inhabitants who fill in as workers. The denounced lived in a close-by structure. He allegedly assaulted the young lady several times over the course of ten days.The supposed wrongdoing became apparent after the casualty whined of serious stomach torment. Her clinical trials had uncovered that she was pregnant. A First Information Report (FIR) was subsequently enlisted against the man at Nerul police headquarters in Navi Mumbai.
The family let the police know that the man and his wife moved toward them in February 2020 and requested that they send the young lady to their home to take care of their two kids. A couple of months after the fact, the young lady grumbled of stomach torment and, afterward, uncovered that while she was focusing on the charged man’s two minor kids, he had committed effective rape on her for ten days while his significant other was away. The young lady expressed that the accused guaranteed her that he would wed her, and he offered her Rs 200 and laid out an actual connection with her two times every day.
The minor’s family guaranteed that after recording the grievance, the blamed better half moved toward them, conceded culpability, and proposed furnishing the casualty young lady with treatment. Without any of her folks, the accused wife took the minor to the clinic and administered two infusions and four tablets. In any case, the embryo couldn’t be ended.
The Bombay High Court noticed that the young lady’s clinical assessment uncovered no proof of sexual assault since she was analysed for the following seven months. Inspecting Supreme Court orders, Justice Dangre said that “however a positive consequence of DNA would comprise securing proof against the charged, if the outcome is negative, the other material on record will, in any case, must be thought about freely.”
Further, Justice Dangre further expressed that since the person in question and her mom recorded their proclamations before the justice, “there is no great explanation to the uncertainty of the said explanation where the casualty has plainly expressed about the sexual abuse because of the candidate, and further, taking into account what is happening, there is a probability of the person in question and his family being compressed by the charge.” The court then denied the bail request.