Supreme Court:

1) Tofan Singh vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2020:

Statements pertaining to Narco-Analysis Test and Lie Detector Test–

The main question being addressed is whether the results obtained from polygraph
examination and the BEAP test should be considered as testimonial responses.
Evidence is typically classified into oral testimony, documents, and material evidence.
The protection under Article 20(3) and Section 161(2) of the CrPC safeguards against
the compulsory extraction of oral testimony during investigation. However, the
compulsory extraction of material evidence is not covered by this protection.
The narco analysis test relies on verbal statements of the test subject and violates the
right against self-incrimination.

The crucial test from the case of Kathi Kalu Oghad is about conveying personal
knowledge through oral or written statements. The difficulty arises because the
majority opinion in that case appears to limit "personal testimony" to such oral or
written statements. However, the results obtained from polygraph examination or the
BEAP test are not in the form of oral or written statements; instead, they are derived
from measuring physiological responses during the tests. It is argued that these results
should not be considered as testimony as they do not involve a positive volitional act
on the part of the test subject.

It is highlighted that the Judges in Kathi Kalu Oghad may not have anticipated these
specific techniques and their scope when discussing "to be a witness" under Article
20(3). Technological advancements necessitate a progressive re-examination of
judicial observations. After considering the arguments, the conclusion is that the
results obtained from tests like polygraph examination and the BEAP test should be
treated as "personal testimony" since they convey personal knowledge about relevant
facts. Thus, the involuntary administration of these tests falls within the scope of
"testimonial compulsion" and is protected under Article 20(3).
2) Captain Manjit Singh Virdi.. vs Hussain Mohammed Shattaf on 18 May 2023

The judgment emphasized the significance of the Polygraph Testing conducted during
the investigation. The court noted that the Psychological Evaluation, including
Polygraph Testing, formed a material piece of evidence in the case. Specifically, the
results of the Polygraph Tests were used to implicate Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the
murder of Manmohan Singh Virdi. The court acknowledged that while a Polygraph
Test report alone may not be sufficient to convict an accused, it is considered relevant
material in the case. The tests revealed deceit in responding to questions about the
murder, knowledge of the deceased's killing, and involvement of the Respondent Nos.
1 and 2 in the crime.

Despite the significance of this material, the High Court did not properly consider it
when passing the impugned order. The court found that the High Court's selective
reference to evidence and non-application of mind led to the erroneous discharge of
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
The Polygraph Test played a crucial role in implicating the accused in the murder
case. While the test itself may not be conclusive evidence, its results were considered
important and relevant in the overall evaluation of the case.
3) State Rep. By The Inspector Of ... vs M. Murugesan on 15 January, 2020

In this case, the State is unhappy with an order issued by the High Court of Judicature
at Madras on 24th April 2019. The High Court had formed a Heterogeneous
Committee composed of specific individuals to provide recommendations on reforms
for the reformation, rehabilitation, and reintegration of convicted or accused
individuals into society. The Committee was also tasked with suggesting best
practices to improve the quality of criminal investigations. The State was directed to
furnish data for each district, and the Committee was to analyze the data and submit
its report within eight weeks.

The background of this order was a matter concerning the grant of bail under Section
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court had previously granted
bail to the accused subject to certain conditions but had ordered the submission of
details related to criminal cases, investigations, trials, and outcomes to shed light on
the functioning of the criminal justice system in the State. In response, the High Court
wrote a comprehensive thesis on the functioning of the criminal justice system in the
State. The Court observed that the primary goal of criminal law should be to reform
and rehabilitate offenders, allowing them to reintegrate into society. However, it
criticized the police for not effectively addressing the problem and emphasized the
need for a revamp of the criminal justice system. It particularly highlighted the decline
in the quality of investigations and the importance of protecting witnesses and tackling
cyber crimes. The matter before the High Court was solely about whether the accused
should be granted bail under Section 439 of the Code. However, the Court went
beyond its jurisdiction and retained the file even after granting bail, addressing issues
not directly related to the case. This was criticized by higher courts in previous cases,
where courts were admonished for venturing into unrelated matters after delivering
the main judgement.

Moreover, the Court cited precedents stating that the inherent powers of the Court
(Section 482 of the Code) should not be used to address issues that have specific
provisions elsewhere in the law or where alternative remedies are available. The Court
emphasized that inherent powers should be exercised sparingly and not used to bypass
prescribed procedures. Additionally, the Court referred to a case where a similar issue
arose, and lie detector tests were ordered for accused individuals. The Court in that
case held that such orders were not only contrary to the principles of criminal law
jurisprudence but also violated statutory requirements.
Furthermore, the Court highlighted another case where the High Court had ordered a
bank to distribute recovered amounts to depositors, which the Court found to be
beyond the scope of the bail application filed by the accused.
The High Court's order forming a Committee and delving into issues unrelated to the
bail application was found to be legally unsustainable, and the State's appeal was
allowed, setting aside the High Court's order. The Court emphasized that while the
effort to improve the criminal justice system was commendable, it was not within the
Court's jurisdiction to address such issues under the guise of the bail application.
4)Inayath Ali & Anr vs. State of Telangana & Anr.

In this case, the appellants are accused of various offences under the Indian Penal
Code, including dowry-related offences, harassment, and physical violence, as alleged
by the respondent (de facto complainant). The respondent sought a DNA fingerprint
test comparing the blood samples of her two minor daughters with that of the first
appellant (her husband) to establish their paternity. The Trial Court allowed her
application, and the appellants appealed to the High Court seeking invalidation of the
order. However, the High Court upheld the Trial Court's order, stating that DNA tests
were permissible under certain sections of the Criminal Procedure Code and did not
amount to testimonial compulsion.

The Supreme Court reviewed the case and noted that the paternity of the respondent's
children was not directly related to the allegations made against the appellants.
Additionally, the children's legitimacy was protected by Section 112 of the Evidence
Act. The Court emphasized that the case could be decided without relying on the
DNA test report and that directing such tests could violate the right to privacy and be
invasive to the physical autonomy of the individuals involved. Therefore, the Court
allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and annulled the Trial Court's
order. The case could be decided based on the available evidence without resorting to
DNA tests, as they were not directly related to the criminal allegations against the
appellants.
5)Ashok Kumar vs Smt. Raj Gupta on 1 October, 2021

During the course of a civil suit filed by Ashok Kumar (the appellant) seeking a
declaration of ownership of property left behind by his deceased parents, Trilok
Chand Gupta and Sona Devi, the defendants, who are the three daughters of the
deceased couple, denied that Ashok Kumar is their brother or the son of their parents.
The defendants claimed exclusive rights to the property based on a will executed by
their late mother, Sona Devi. At a later stage of the proceedings, when it was the
defendants' turn to present evidence, they filed an application seeking a DNA test to
establish a biological link between Ashok Kumar and their parents. Ashok Kumar
opposed this application, arguing that he had already presented sufficient evidence to
prove his relation to the deceased couple, including sworn affidavits from the
defendants themselves stating that he was their brother. The trial court rejected the
defendants' application, stating that the burden of proof lay with Ashok Kumar to
establish his relationship with the defendants, and he cannot be forced to undergo a
DNA test against his wishes. Dissatisfied with the trial court's decision, the defendants
appealed to the High Court, which allowed their application for the DNA test.
Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, Ashok Kumar approached the Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court considered previous judgments on DNA testing,
emphasizing that DNA tests should only be ordered in deserving cases and must
satisfy the test of "eminent need." The court also highlighted the right to privacy, as
declared constitutionally protected in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. The
Supreme Court concluded that in a declaratory suit where ownership of coparcenary
property is claimed, DNA tests should not be ordered as a matter of routine, especially
when the plaintiff has already presented sufficient evidence to prove his case. The
court noted that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the positive, and the
plaintiff should not be compelled to adduce further evidence in the manner suggested
by the defendants. Forcing a DNA test on the unwilling plaintiff would infringe on his
personal liberty and right to privacy.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision and restored the trial court's
order, allowing the suit to proceed based on the evidence already presented by Ashok
Kumar and the evidence to be adduced by the defendants. The court emphasized that
the case should be decided by weighing both sides' evidence without compelling the
plaintiff to undergo a DNA test against his wishes.
High Court of Telangana:

1)Boire Thirupathi vs State Of Telangana on 27 September, 2022

This is a criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., directed against a judgment
dated 12.10.2017 in S.C.No.16 of 2014. The case was before the Special Sessions
Judge for trial of cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act-
cum- I-Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad. The appellant-accused was convicted
and sentenced for various offenses, including a sexual offense under Section 6 of the
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The
prosecution's case was that the accused and the victim, a minor girl, were from the
same village and locality. The accused lured the victim with false promises of
marriage, developed a relationship, and had sexual intercourse with her. As a result,
the victim became pregnant. When she requested the accused to marry her, he refused,
leading to her lodging a complaint.

The accused pleaded not guilty, and the prosecution presented witnesses and evidence
to prove their case. The main issue was the age of the victim, as the POCSO Act
applies to children below 18 years of age. The prosecution relied on the victim's
statement and a bona fide certificate issued by the Headmaster of her school,
indicating her age was below 16 years at the time of the incident. The defense
challenged the delay in filing the complaint, the reliability of the DNA test as
evidence, and the lack of corroborative evidence. The court considered the evidence,
including the victim's testimony, the bona fide certificate, and the DNA test results. It
concluded that the victim was below 16 years old at the time of the incident, making
her a child as defined by the POCSO Act. The court also found the victim's testimony
trustworthy and consistent, and the DNA test further supported the case.

The court cited precedents that state a conviction can be based solely on the testimony
of the prosecutrix (the victim), if her evidence is reliable and trustworthy. It also
rejected the defense's arguments about the delay in filing the complaint and the
admissibility of the DNA test. Based on these findings, the court dismissed the appeal,
upholding the accused's conviction and sentence.
2)Mohammed Munawar Or M.Manohar vs The State Of Telangana on 4
January, 2023

In this case, the petitioner (Husband) challenged the order of the Additional Family
Court Judge, dated 29.11.2022, directing him to undergo a DNA test to determine
whether he is the father of the minor child named Mohammed Rayyam Ahmed (Son).
The wife (2nd respondent) had filed a petition under Section 45 r/w Section 112 of the
Indian Evidence Act, seeking the court's direction for a DNA test to establish the
paternity of the child, as the husband had denied the marital relationship and claimed
not to be the biological father of the child. The petitioner's counsel argued that courts
should not routinely order DNA testing and contended that the Supreme Court has
ruled against such mechanical orders of DNA testing when paternity is not in
question. The counsel cited relevant judgments to support this argument.
However, the court upheld the order for DNA testing in this case, considering the
specific circumstances. The wife claimed the existence of a marriage and the child's
birth, and both the wife and son sought maintenance from the husband. The court
stated that while courts should not automatically order paternity tests, the present case
warranted DNA testing, as it would resolve issues related to maintenance and
Domestic Violence Act proceedings. The court emphasized that refusal by the
husband to undergo the DNA test could lead to an adverse inference against him,
presuming him to be the child's biological father. In this case, the court found
sufficient reasons provided by the Family Court Judge for ordering the DNA test,
considering the background of the cases and the evidence presented.

The court concluded that while DNA testing should be used cautiously to avoid the
risk of unjustly bastardizing a child, it found no illegality in the Family Court's order
for DNA testing in this particular case. Consequently, the Criminal Petition was
dismissed, and any related applications were closed.
3)Venkatesh Derangula vs Kaja Suryanarayana on 28 April, 2023

The Court heard Civil Revision Petition (CRP) Nos. 2433 of 2022, 1, and 9 of 2023.
The cases involved an election dispute related to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal
Corporation (GHMC) elections. The petitioner alleged that the 4th respondent, who
contested on behalf of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), had more than two children,
which would disqualify him from the election under Section 21-B of the GHMC Act.
The petitioner claimed that the 4th respondent submitted false particulars about his
children and their birth certificates. The petitioner sought a DNA test to determine the
parenthood of one of the children, named Derangula Sai Chandana.
The Court ruled that subjecting a child to a DNA test against her will and consent
would violate her right to privacy. The child was not a party to the election dispute,
and compelling her to undergo a DNA test would infringe upon her personal liberty
and dignity. The Court emphasized that the child's privacy should be protected,
especially considering her young age and lack of consent. Regarding the request for
production of medical records from hospitals, the Court found that the petitioner had
not sought such a relief, and therefore, the Election Tribunal had exceeded its
jurisdiction by ordering the production of records that were not requested.

Additionally, the Court upheld the Election Tribunal's decision not to summon the
documents obtained under the Right to Information Act as evidence, as the petitioner
had not properly filed a petition seeking to mark those documents as secondary
evidence. In conclusion, the Court dismissed CRP Nos. 1 and 9 of 2023 and allowed
CRP No. 2433 of 2022, with no costs imposed on either party.
Few other cases that deal with DNA are as follows:

1. Anju Garg vs Deepak Kumar Garg on 28 September, 2022

2. Veerendra vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 May, 2022
3. Ashok Kumar vs Smt. Raj Gupta on 1 October, 2021
4. Chaman Lal vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 3 December, 2020
5. Manoj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 May, 2022
6. John Anthonisamy @ John vs State Rep. By The Inspector Of ... on 19
January, 2023
7. Aparna Ajinkya Firodia vs Ajinkya Arun Firodia on 20 February, 2023
8. Sanjay Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 May, 2023
9. Indrajit Das vs The State Of Tripura on 28 February, 2023
10.Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19
May, 2023

Please note that few cases just revolve around DNA/Narco Analysis/Brain
Mapping whereas few others talk about the applicability of DNA/Narco
Analysis/Brain Mapping tests as evidence.