JUDGMENT Mr. M.M.S. Bedi, J.: (Oral) - An applicant under Section 53-A Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner accused has been dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated February 1, 2013. 2. I have considered the validity of that order in context to the allegations of the father of the prosecutrix claiming that his 9 years old daughter was picked up by the petitioner and raped in the house of petitioner and was left badly hurt in nude condition. The grievous of the petitioner is that his application under Section 53-A Cr.P.C. for determining his DNA profile has been wrongly dismissed by the trial Court. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the application under Section 53-A Cr.P.C., annexure P-3. In the said application, the purpose for which the petitioner seeks a direction for DNA profiling of the petitioner is not mentioned. Even otherwise, the medical evidence which is permissible under law is meant to support the direct evidence and is in the nature of corroborative evidence. The application under Section 53-A Cr.P.C. being vague, does not deserve to be allowed. I have also considered the judgment cited by counsel for the petitioner Krishan Kumar Malik Vs. State of Haryana, [2011(4) Law Herald (SC) 2627 : 2011(3) Law Herald (P&H) (SC) 2302] : (2011) 7 SCC 130 , wherein the scope of Section 53-A Cr.P.C. stands explained. In Krishan Kumar’s case (supra) the description of the accused had not been given by the prosecutrix as such the accused had sought the comparison of his DNA analysis to match the semen on the undergarments of the prosecutrix. Even in the judgment cited by counsel for the petitioner it was observed that the provisions of Section 53 A Cr.P.C. are meant to facilitate the prosecution to prove the case against the accused. No ground is made out to interfere in the well reasoned order passed by the trial Court. 4. Dismissed. 5. Nothing said in this order will prejudice the rights of the petitioner during the course of trial.