The Madras High Court has unequivocally held that a DNA test to ascertain the paternity of a child bears no direct relevance in determining the offence of bigamy. Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, presiding over a criminal revision plea, underscored that a DNA test can only be mandated when there is an 'eminent need' for such an examination and its outcome is 'directly in issue' to the core legal question. The court clarified that the offences under Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pertaining to bigamy, do not necessitate a DNA analysis.
Justice Shaffiq observed that any direction for DNA testing by trial courts in such circumstances stems from a 'fundamental misapprehension of both statutory framework and constitutional safeguards.' The court reiterated that the nature and circumstances of an alleged offence under Section 495 IPC do not warrant recourse to DNA analysis.
Background of the Case
The ruling arose from a criminal revision petition filed by a man challenging an order from the Additional Mahila Court. The trial court had allowed a prosecution application seeking to subject the man and his minor child to DNA testing. The de facto complainant had married the petitioner in January 2011, and a male child was born from this union in June 2012. Subsequently, the complainant alleged that the man had fraudulently induced her into marriage by concealing his subsisting first marriage. She filed a private complaint before the Magistrate, accusing him of dishonestly obtaining money and property.
Following the Magistrate's directions, an FIR was registered against the man for offences under Sections 495, 420 read with Section 418, and 468 of the IPC. A final report was filed, and the case proceeded to trial before the Additional Mahila Court.
Trial Court Proceedings and Petitioner's Challenge
During the cross-examination of the complainant, the petitioner asserted that he was not the biological father of the minor child and further alleged that the complainant had previously married another individual. Based on these suggestions made during cross-examination, the prosecution filed an application requesting a DNA test, which the trial judge subsequently granted.
Aggrieved by this decision, the man filed the criminal revision plea before the Madras High Court. His counsel contended that the trial judge's order was passed without jurisdiction and in a mechanical manner. It was argued that mere suggestions made during cross-examination could not, by themselves, constitute sufficient grounds to compel an accused to undergo DNA testing. Conversely, the prosecution maintained that the DNA test had become necessary due to the issues raised during the cross-examination.
Court's Legal Rationale and Disposition
The High Court meticulously considered the essential ingredients required to prove an offence under Section 495 of the IPC. The court noted that to establish bigamy, it must be proven that the accused committed the offence and concealed the details of a former marriage from the person with whom the subsequent marriage was contracted. The court found that paternity of the child was not an issue directly relevant to proving these elements of bigamy.
Referring to decisions of the Supreme Court, the Madras High Court observed that even in cases where a DNA test might be a mode to establish an essential element, such a test should only be directed as a last resort, after exhausting all other available remedies. In the present case, the court concluded that the offence alleged was bigamy, and paternity was not a central issue. Consequently, the direction for a DNA test suffered from a misdirection of law.
Finding the trial court's order to be devoid of merits, the Madras High Court set aside the order that mandated the DNA test. The case was titled M v Government of Tamil Nadu, bearing Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 390 and Case No. Crl RC (MD) No.17 of 2026.