JUDGMENT S. VAIDYANATHAN, J. 1. The petitioner has lodged a complaint against one V. Veerakumaran, the 4th respondent herein, who is working as a Constable in the Armed Reserved Police, which was registered in Crime No. 47 of 2013 on the file of the All Women Police Station, Samayanallur, Madurai, for the offences under Sections 376, 417 of IPC and 3(1)(xii) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, alleging that the petitioner and 4th respondent were having love affair and she was subjected to repeated sexual intercourse on the promise made by him to marry her. She belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and 4th respondent belongs to a Hindu Backward community. Due to said intimate relationship, the petitioner became pregnant and on knowing the same, she started insisting 4th respondent to marry her. Since 4th respondent failed to comply with his promise and was evading to marry the petitioner, she lodged the complaint. Thereafter, the petitioner became pregnant and gave birth to a male child. 2. By order, dated 5.3.2014, while granting the bail to 4th respondent, the learned III Addl. District Judge, Madurai, directed him to undergo DNA test for knowing the paternity of the child. Pursuant to the same, it appears that 4th respondent undergone DNA test on 13.5.2014. Dr. R. Rajesh, Scientific Officer, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai, attached to Rajaji Government Hospital, who conducted the DNA test, submitted the result of the test and opined that “the alleged father Mr. Veerakumaran is excluded from the paternity of the male child.” 3. Being not satisfied with the above said repost, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition, seeking for re-test. 4. 3rd respondent has filed a status report, stating that during the investigation, DNA test was conducted on the 4th respondent by Thiru Dr. R. Rajesh, Scientific Officer, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai attached to Rajaji Government Hospital and it revealed that the alleged father Mr. Veerakumaran is excluded from the paternity of the male child. After receipt of the said report, the second respondent examined the doctor and filed charge sheet before the III Addl. District Court, Madurai. It is also stated that the allegations levelled by the petitioner against Women Gr. I Constable, namely, Bhuvaneswari are false and foisted and all the three persons, viz., the petitioner, 4th respondent and the child were produced before Dr. District Court, Madurai. It is also stated that the allegations levelled by the petitioner against Women Gr. I Constable, namely, Bhuvaneswari are false and foisted and all the three persons, viz., the petitioner, 4th respondent and the child were produced before Dr. Dhadar Mohideen, Casuality Medical Officer, Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai on 13.5.2014 by the said constable and the blood samples of the above said three persons were collected in front of each other only without any deviation. Therefore, the 3rd respondent sought for consideration of the status report and also pointed out that there is no need to order for second DNA test as prayed for by the petitioner. 5. A counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, wherein, denying all the allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that when the matter was referred to Mediation by this Court, he filed an affidavit stating that he is ready to undergo DNA test, but it was not accepted by the petitioner. Later, pursuant to the directions of the Court below, he underwent DNA test and there were no defects in collecting the blood samples as pointed out by the petitioner and there was no manipulation in the process of conducting the DNA test and it was conducted in a proper manner. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has raised objections after lapse of five months and that too after knowing the results of the test. Since the FIR was registered against him, based on the complaint of the petitioner, 4th respondent was suspended from service. With these averments, 4th respondent sought for dismissal of the petitioner. 6. The only point for consideration arises for consideration, is that in the given circumstances where already there was a result of the DNA test, whether it is appropriate to order re-test of DNA? 7. While reiterating the avernments made in the petition, Mr. A. Sahaya Philomin Raj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that when there were suspicious circumstances were pointed out regarding collection of blood samples and when the earlier report is doubtful, in order to do substantial justice, this Court has to consider the same and to order for the second DNA test. A. Sahaya Philomin Raj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that when there were suspicious circumstances were pointed out regarding collection of blood samples and when the earlier report is doubtful, in order to do substantial justice, this Court has to consider the same and to order for the second DNA test. He also contended that by ordering such re-test, no prejudice would be caused to 4th respondent since already, there was a result in his favour, otherwise, serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioner and it would have considerable impact on the criminal proceedings already initiated and pending against 4th respondent and that there would be every likelihood of rejecting the demand of the petitioner to marry and accept the child as his son by 4th respondent. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the order of this Court, dated 13.04.2010 made in Crl. Revision Case No. 567 of 2008. 8. On the other hand, Mr. S. Durairaj, learned counsel appearing for 4th respondent would submit that since 4th respondent offered himself to undergo DNA test only in order to prove the allegations made against him by the petitioner are false, the Court below ordered to conduct DNA test, which was duly undergone by the petitioner and 4th respondent and when the result came in negative, it is not appropriate on the part of the petitioner to seek for second DNA test and this Court should take note that ordering for second DNA test would lead to unhealthy atmosphere and there would be no ending if time and again tests are ordered at the instance of the other party till they get favourable report. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik vs. Lata Nandlal Badwaik and another, 2014 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 621 and also the decision of this Court reported in Sakthivel vs. Karpagam, (2005) 3 MLJ 483. 9. What is meant by DNA test has been described by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik vs. Lata Nandlal Badwaik and another, 2014 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 621, which is extracted below: “All living beings are composed of cells which are the smallest and basic unit of life. An average human body has trillion of cells of different sizes. What is meant by DNA test has been described by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik vs. Lata Nandlal Badwaik and another, 2014 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 621, which is extracted below: “All living beings are composed of cells which are the smallest and basic unit of life. An average human body has trillion of cells of different sizes. DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid), which is found in the chromosomes of the cells of living beings, is the blueprint of an individual. Human cells contain 46 chromosomes and those 46 chromosomes contain a total of six billion base pair in 46 duplex threads of DNA. DNA consists of four nitrogenous bases-adenine, thymine, cytosine, guanine and phosphoric acid arranged in a regular structure. When two unrelated people possessing the same DNA pattern have been compared, the chances of complete similarity are 1 in 30 billion to 300 billion. Given that the Earth’s population is about 5 billion, this test shall have accurate result. It has been recognized by this Court in the case of Kamti Devi (supra) that the result of a genuine DNA test is scientifically accurate. 10. Coming to the case on hand, a perusal of the petition, it reveals that the petitioner has pointed out very many defects in conducting the DNA test and even made allegations against a constable who was deputed to collect the blood samples of the persons. According to the petitioner, blood samples were not collected from 4th respondent, but from one stranger, who accompanied him, that too in her absence and separately at different timings. These are bald allegations set out by the petitioner for seeking second DNA test. But a perusal of the status report filed by the Inspector of Police/3rd respondent reveals that there were no such defects were taken place in conducting the DNA test and the blood samples of three persons were collected in front of each other only without any deviation. It is settled law that vague and bald averments cannot be considered and mere based on such allegations, this Court is not inclined to order for second DNA test. 11. In fact, there is no provision either in Hindu Marriage Act or in Indian Evidence Act or in any other law, empowering the Court, to issue a direction, upon a party to a matrimonial proceedings or in any other proceedings, to compel them to submit to blood test. 11. In fact, there is no provision either in Hindu Marriage Act or in Indian Evidence Act or in any other law, empowering the Court, to issue a direction, upon a party to a matrimonial proceedings or in any other proceedings, to compel them to submit to blood test. However, while considering that a child or a minor is entitled to all kind of protection in the hands of the Court and when its paternity is challenged, in order to avoid the effect of branding a child as bastard and the mother as an unchaste woman and the legitimacy of the child should not be put to peril, the Courts have come to rescue and ordered the parties to undergo DNA test or to give blood samples, for analysis. In Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit, 1999 (7) SCC 675 , which had arisen under Section 125 of C.P.C., for maintenance, the Apex Court has held, that a person, who refuses to undergo DNA test, is disentitled to dispute the paternity of the child. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Dipanwita Roy vs. Ronobroth Roay, 2014 (6) CTC 791, wherein, it has been held as under in para 9 and 10: 9. A similar issue came to be adjudicated upon by this Court in Bhabani Prasad Jena vs. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women and another, (2010) 8 SCC 633 , wherein this Court held as under: “21. In a matter where paternity of a child is in issue before the court, the use of DNA test is an extremely delicate and sensitive aspect. One view is that when modern science gives the means of ascertaining the paternity of a child, there should not be any hesitation to use those means whenever the occasion requires. The other view is that the court must be reluctant in the use of such scientific advances and tools which result in invasion of right to privacy of an individual and may not only be prejudicial to the rights of the parties but may have devastating effect on the child. Sometimes the result of such scientific test may bastardise an innocent child even though his mother and her spouse were living together during the time of conception. 22. Sometimes the result of such scientific test may bastardise an innocent child even though his mother and her spouse were living together during the time of conception. 22. In our view, when there is apparent conflict between the right to privacy of a person not to submit himself forcibly to medical examination and duty of the court to reach the truth, the court must exercise its discretion only after balancing the interests of the parties and on due consideration whether for a just decision in the matter, DNA test is eminently needed. DNA test in a matter relating to paternity of a child should not be directed by the court as a matter of course or in a routine manner, whenever such a request is made. The court has to consider diverse aspects including presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence Act; pros and cons of such order and the test of “eminent need” whether it is not possible for the court to reach the truth without use of such test. 23. There is no conflict in the two decisions of this court, namely, Goutam Kundu vs. State of West Bengal, (1993) 3 SCC 418 and Sharda vs. Dharmpal, (2003) 4 SCC 493 . In Goutam Kundu, it has been laid down that courts in India cannot order blood test as a matter of course and such prayers cannot be granted to have roving inquiry; there must be strong prima facie case and the court must carefully examine as to what would be the consequence of ordering the blood test. In Sharda, while concluding that a matrimonial court has power to order a person to undergo a medical test, it was reiterated that the court should exercise such a power if the applicant has a strong prime facie case and there is sufficient material before the court. Obviously, therefore, any order for DNA test can be given by the court only if a strong prima facie case is made out for such a course. 24. Insofar as the present case is concerned, we have already held that the State Commission has no authority, competence or power to order DNA test. Looking to the nature of proceedings with which the High Court was concerned, it has to be held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. 24. Insofar as the present case is concerned, we have already held that the State Commission has no authority, competence or power to order DNA test. Looking to the nature of proceedings with which the High Court was concerned, it has to be held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. Strangely, the High Court overlooked a very material aspect that the matrimonial dispute between the parties is already pending in the court of competent jurisdiction and all aspects concerning matrimonial dispute raised by the parties in that case shall be adjudicated and determined by that court. Should an issue arise before the matrimonial court concerning the paternity of the child, obviously that court will be competent to pass an appropriate order at the relevant time in accordance with law. In any view of the matter, it is not possible to sustain the order passed by the High Court.” (Emphasis is ours) It is therefore apparent, that despite the consequences of a DNA test, this Court has concluded, that it was permissible for a Court to permit the holding of a DNA test, if it was eminently needed, after balancing the interests of the parties. Recently, the issue was again considered by this Court in Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik vs. Lata Nandlal Badwaik and another, (2014) 2 SCC 576 , wherein this Court held as under: “15. Here, in the present case, the wife had pleaded that the husband had access to her and, in fact, the child was born in the said wedlock, but the husband had specifically pleaded that after his wife left the matrimonial home, she did not return and thereafter, he had no access to her. The wife has admitted that she had left the matrimonial home but again joined her husband. Unfortunately, none of the courts below have given any finding with regard to this plea of the husband that he had not any access to his wife at the time when the child could have been begotten. 16. As stated earlier, the DNA test is an accurate test and on that basis it is clear that the appellant is not the biological father of the girl child. 16. As stated earlier, the DNA test is an accurate test and on that basis it is clear that the appellant is not the biological father of the girl child. However, at the same time, the condition precedent for invocation of Section 112 of the Evidence Act has been established and no finding with regard to the plea of the husband that he had no access to his wife at the time when the child could have been begotten has been recorded. Admittedly, the child has been born during the continuance of a valid marriage. Therefore, the provisions of Section 112 of the Evidence Act conclusively prove that Respondent 2 is the daughter of the appellant. At the same time, the DNA test reports, based on scientific analysis, in no uncertain terms suggest that the appellant is not the biological father. In such circumstances, which would give way to the other is a complex question posed before us. 17. We may remember that Section 112 of the Evidence Act was enacted at a time when the modern scientific advancement and DNA test were not even in contemplation of the legislature. The result of DNA test is said to be scientifically accurate. Although Section 112 raises a presumption of conclusive proof on satisfaction of the conditions enumerated therein but the same is rebuttable. The presumption may afford legitimate means of arriving at an affirmative legal conclusion. While the truth or fact is known, in our opinion, there is no need or room for any presumption. Where there is evidence to the contrary, the presumption is rebuttable and must yield to proof. The interest of justice is best served by ascertaining the truth and the court should be furnished with the best available science and may not be left to bank upon presumptions, unless science has no answer to the facts in issue. In our opinion, when there is a conflict between a conclusive proof envisaged under law and a proof based on scientific advancement accepted by the world community to be correct, the latter must prevail over the former. 18. We must understand the distinction between a legal fiction and the presumption of a fact. Legal fiction assumes existence of a fact which may not really exist. However, a presumption of a fact depends on satisfaction of certain circumstances. Those circumstances logically would lead to the fact sought to be presumed. 18. We must understand the distinction between a legal fiction and the presumption of a fact. Legal fiction assumes existence of a fact which may not really exist. However, a presumption of a fact depends on satisfaction of certain circumstances. Those circumstances logically would lead to the fact sought to be presumed. Section 112 of the Evidence Act does not create a legal fiction but provides for presumption. 19. The husband's plea that he had no access to the wife when the child was begotten stands proved by the DNA test report and in the face of it, we cannot compel the appellant to bear the fatherhood of a child, when the scientific reports prove to the contrary. We are conscious that an innocent child may not be bastardised as the marriage between her mother and father was subsisting at the time of her birth, but in view of the DNA test reports and what we have observed above, we cannot forestall the consequence. It is denying the truth. “Truth must triumph” is the hallmark of justice.” (Emphasis is ours) This Court has therefore clearly opined, that proof based on a DNA test would be sufficient to dislodge, a presumption under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act. “10. It is borne from the decisions rendered by this Court in Bhabani Prasad Jena (supra), and Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik (supra), that depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be permissible for a Court to direct the holding of a DNA examination, to determine the veracity of the allegation(s), which constitute one of the grounds, on which the concerned party would either succeed or lose. There can be no dispute, that if the direction to hold such a test can be avoided, it should be so avoided. The reason, as already recorded in various judgments by this Court, is that the legitimacy of a child should not be put to peril.” 12. In the present case, in order to prove his bona fide, the 4th respondent himself offered to undergo DNA test and consequently, while granting bail, the Court below ordered DNA test, pursuant to which, DNA test was conducted and a report was also filed along with the charge sheet. Therefore, when there is already a DNA test report available, is it appropriate to order re-test, is the question to be answered. 13. Therefore, when there is already a DNA test report available, is it appropriate to order re-test, is the question to be answered. 13. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer the decision of this Court reported in “Sakthivel vs. Karpagam” (cited supra), wherein, in order to determine the paternity of the child, the plea of the husband for sending the blood samples for DNA rest for the second time has been declined. Paragraphs 11 and 15 are relevant and they are extracted as under: “11. It is a matter of common experience that Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory is a Government Organization. There could be no inference that the respondent/wife has influenced the officials, who have conducted the DNA test. The procedure adopted for DNA test and the report thereon is an official act done in the Forensic Science Laboratory. When that official act is proved to have been done, under Sec.114-III(e) of Indian Evidence Act, it will be presumed to have been regularly done. The presumption is as to the regularity of the official act. Once a DNA test has been conducted and the report confirms the paternity of the child, the presumption is that of formalities have been complied with and that the proper test has been conducted. “15. As rightly submitted by the respondent/wife, if the samples are sent to three different places, three different reports might lead to confusion. The petitioner cannot seek to send blood samples for DNA test for the second time which would lead to unhealthy practice where the parties repeatedly seeking to send the sample till they get a favourable report. Such request of the revision petitioner/husband to send the blood samples of the spouse for DNA rest for the second time cannot be acceded to.” “16. Expert evidence is of value in case where the Courts have to deal with the matters regarding the paternity. The D.N.A. test report is only a piece of evidence (though of course a strong piece of evidence) in determining the paternity of the child. It supplements the oral evidence. The opinion evidence/expert evidence is only to assist the Court in determining the paternity. The D.N.A. test report is to be analysed along with the facts and other evidence to be adduced by the parties. The D.N.A. test report is only a supporting evidence in favour of either party. It supplements the oral evidence. The opinion evidence/expert evidence is only to assist the Court in determining the paternity. The D.N.A. test report is to be analysed along with the facts and other evidence to be adduced by the parties. The D.N.A. test report is only a supporting evidence in favour of either party. During the trial, it is for the revision petitioner/husband to establish that the earlier D.N.A. test is exposed to reasonable degree of suspicion. But the revision petitioner cannot seek for conduct of another D.N.A. examination.” 14. It is also worthwhile to refer the decision of this Court made in Crl. O.P. No. 5258 of 2010, dated 16.9.2010, wherein, while following the decision of this Court in “Sakthivel vs. Karpagam” (cited supra) and referring to the order, dated 13.4.2010 made in Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 567 of 2008 which was relied on by the petitioner, this Court has declined to order second DNA test. It has been observed in para 10 to as under: “10. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the report of the expert is quite antithetical to the realities. The defacto complainant is the best person to say as through whom she gave birth to the child as she with all sincerity submitted that she gave birth to the child only in view of her sexual life with the accused and in such a case, the report should be wrong and accordingly, the learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for a second DNA test. He also relied upon the unreported judgment of this Court dated 13.04.2010 in Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 567 of 2008. An excerpt from it, would run thus: "10. On taking into consideration of the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, this Court finds some force on it, because since the first respondent in the revision petition being the father of the victim girl had voluntarily come forward with the petition in Crl. M.P. No. 48 of 2008 in S.C. No. 388 of 2006, with a request to pass an order for the second D.N.A. test apprehending that the first report dated 25.04.2007 could have been obtained by the influence of a doctor, known to this revision petitioner, it may be appropriate to order for the second DNA test at the expenses of the parties concerned. 11. 11. As adumbrated supra, there is nothing wrong to conduct another test for the satisfaction of the victim girl at their expenses. Under these circumstances, the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Madurai, shall have to be modified." The above cited judgment is merely out of concession being given to the victim in the facts and circumstances of that case; however, in the earlier judgment, the law point has been dealt with in extenso. “11. A mere reading of the decision of this Court in Sakthivel vs. Karpagam, (2005) 3 MLJ 483, would show that simply because an expert opinion is not in favour of a particular individual, that individual cannot go on seeking separate expert opinion till he could find a favourable opinion. No doubt, in this case, the petitioner/defacto complainant based on her own confidence in herself has come forward with the plea that she gave birth to the child only through the accused and at this stage, this Court cannot give any finding on that. However, before she could ask for a second DNA test, she must be able to point out as to what are the defects in the earlier DNA test and absolutely, there is no iota or shred, shrug or molecular, jot or pint of evidence to point out that the available expert opinion is fraught with falsity or illegality or with any non-medical approach. When such is the position, this Court, at this stage, cannot simply order for the second DNA test.” 15. In view of the facts and circumstances and having regard to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court narrated above, this Court is of the view that it is not appropriate to order for second DNA test. As already discussed supra, when the report of the DNA test conducted earlier was available on the file, which was given by the Scientific Officer, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai against which, no reasonable defect was pointed out or any allegations of mala fide were made out against the said expert by the petitioner, the same cannot be easily brushed aside merely based on her surmises and bald and vague allegations. The order of this Court, dated 13.04.2010 in Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 567 of 2008 relied on by the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the present case. The order of this Court, dated 13.04.2010 in Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 567 of 2008 relied on by the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the present case. In the said case, already, the Court below had ordered second DNA test while cancelling the earlier report on the ground that it was obtained by the influence of a doctor known to the revision petitioner therein whose favour, the result came and while confirming the order of the Court, this Court ordered second DNA test without dealing with the issue in extenso and moreover, in the present case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the report has been obtained by the influence of the expert. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved over the defects in collecting the blood samples and sending it to the Laboratory, etc., it is for the petitioner first to prove same before seeking for second DNA test. 16. For the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the Criminal Original Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, while dismissing the present Criminal Original Petition, this Court could emerge the following in the matter of ordering second DNA test. i. The Courts cannot compel the parties to undergo DNA test for the second time; ii. The earlier DNA test cannot be treated as doubtful or set aside mere based on bald and vague allegations made by the party against whom the result of the said test was declared negative; iii. When already DNA test report is available, there is no need to order second DNA test unless it is proved by the party who raised objections, that it has been exposed to reasonable degree of suspicion and the said report has been obtained by the influence of the Expert who gave the report; iv. Direction to conduct DNA test more than once cannot be granted since it would lead to unhealthy practice where the parties repeatedly seeking to send the sample till they get a favourable report and different reports may also lead to confusion; v. DNA test report is only a piece of evidence (though of course a strong piece of evidence) in determining the paternity of a child, but it is to be noted that the said report is to be analysed along with the facts and other evidence to be adduced by the parties in support of their case. It is always open to them to raise objections regarding the DNA test during the course of trial; vi. In order to avoid unnecessary doubts in the minds of the parties, it is necessary that the blood samples of the parties concerned are to be taken in the presence of each other and send to the lab and the entire process is to be recorded by video at the expenses of the party who is interested in such video recording.