# Urmila Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 938
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-02
- **Case number:** Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 12417 of 2025
- **Bench:** Manoj Baja
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/urmila-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54418
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

938 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
25. It is, however, made clear that the observation made by this Court will not be
considered by any Court or Authority in future and whatever is observed in this case, is only
applicable for disposal of this application.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 938
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 12417 of 2025
alongwith
Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 1738 of 2021
alongwith
Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 42067 of 2022

Urmila Yadav ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for consideration
In the present case applicant challenge to orders passed during rape case trial permitting expert examination
of a disputed handwritten letter at the instance of the accused u/s 311 CrPC, refusing DNA testing of the
accused with the child allegedly born from the prosecutrix, and dismissing an application u/s 319 CrPC for
summoning additional accused persons.

Headnotes
A. Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 376, 313, 506-Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Sections 311,
319-Expert examination of disputed handwriting-Accused relied upon a letter allegedly written
by the prosecutrix to establish consent and sought handwriting comparison by an expert-Mere
denial of authorship by the prosecutrix during cross-examination does not render the document
inadmisible or foreclose scientific examination thereof-Trial court justified in permitting expert
analysis of the disputed document, the same being relevant for effective adjudication of the
defence case-Order allowing application u/s 311 CrPC upheld.(Para 10)

B. DNA Testing-Child allegedly born from relationship between prosecutrix and accused-DNA
profiling of the accused and the child alleged to have been born from the sexual relationship
would constitute crucial scientific evidence having direct nexus with the prosecution caseRejection of such prayer solely on the grounds that the Investigating officer had not conducted
the test or that the trial had reached an advanced stage held unsustainable-Application for DNA
testing allowed.(Para 11, 12)
Summoning of additional accused-Section 319 CrPC-Revision challenging refusal to summon
additional accused persons having been withdrawn by the petitioner, the same was dismissed as
withdrawn.(Para 13)

Held
The court observed that both the prosecution and the defence are entitled to rely upon the best available
evidence in a criminal trial. While the order allowing handwriting comparison was affirmed, the rejection of
4 All. Urmila Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
939
the prosecutrix's request for DNA profiling was held to be contrary to the interest of justice. The application
for DNA testing consequently allowed. The remaining revision stood dismissed as withdrawn. (E-6)

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

List of Keywords
Rape, Consent, Disputed Handwritten Letter, Handwriting Expert, Expert opinion, Section 311 CrPC, Section
319 CrPC, DNA Test, Scientific Evidence, Fair Trial, Prosecutrix, Accused, Sexual offences, Criminal Trial,
Evidentiary Value, Truth Discovery, Expert Examination, Inherent jurisdiction, Appreciation of evidence.

Case Arising from
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No.- 12417 OF 2025 02.04.2026
Urmila Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr
From the judgment and order dated 02.04.2026 of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for Applicant(s)
Raj Kumar Tripathi
Advs. for Opposite Party(s)
G.A., Suraj Kumar Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj, J.)

1. Petitioner-Complainant has filed the above three separate petitions, i.e. two petitions under
Section 528 B.N.S.S. and 482 Cr.P.C. to challenge the orders dated 23.10.2024 and 25.8.2022
respectively, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ FTC-2, Ghaziabad in Session Trial No. 776 of
2018, titled State Vs. Shashi Bhushan Gupta, arising out of Case Crime No. 188 of 2018, under
Sections 376, 313, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad, whereby
the application moved by the accused-opposite party no.2 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was allowed,
whereas vide oder dated 25.8.2022 the application by the prosecutrix for DNA test of the accused
with his daughter born from the forcible physical relation has been dismissed. Criminal Revision
Petition challenges the order dated 22.3.2021, whereby the application by petitioner under Section
319 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of additional accused-relatives of the accused-opposite party no.2
has been dismissed.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner-prosecutrix has argued that the prosecutrix lodged the
subject F.I.R. against the accused-opposite party no.2 and his relatives, who had allegedly raped her
on 27.9.2015 in her house by use of force, and after committing the crime he threatened her not to
disclose it to anyone, and accused had also promised that he would perform marriage with her.
Learned counsel submits that as per the allegations, the prosecutrix turned pregnant, but the
accused forced abortion of her pregnancy on 29.7.2016 in the clinic of Dr. Nisha Khurana, and
thereafter, he continued to forcibly set up physical relations with her on the strength of her obscene
videos prepared by him. As a result, the prosecutrix again turned pregnant and again the accusedopposite party no.2 requested for abortion and also threatened to kill her, if, she refuses for
abortion. Broadly, on these allegations, the F.I.R. was registered for the alleged commission of
offences punishable under Sections 376, 313, 506 I.P.C.
940 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after completion of investigation, the
charge sheet was filed only against the accused-opposite party no.2, whereas other accused
persons-his close relatives were exonerated. Learned counsel submits that after commencement of
trial, the testimony of prosecutrix was recorded in the year 2020 and during her cross-examination,
the accused had confronted her with a document-a letter in the handwriting of the prosecutrix, but
she categorically denied the said document to be written by her. Learned counsel submits that once
the prosecutrix had denied the said document set up by the accused-opposite party no.2, the trial
court could not have ordered the examination of the handwriting of the said letter by an expert vide
impugned order dated 23.10.2024 by accepting the application.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that another application was moved
by the prosecutrix-petitioner for conducting DNA test of the accused with the minor daughter of the
prosecutrix alleged to be born as a result of forcible physical relations set up by him and the said
application has been dismissed by the trial court vide impugned order dated 25.8.2022 on the
ground that the investigating officer was not informed about such a test and the charge sheet filed
against the accused is silent in this regard.

5.That apart, the application is dismissed on another ground that the trial has reached at an
advanced stage. He submits that both these orders call for interference by this Court in exercise of
inherent powers.

6.The prayer is opposed by learned counsel for the accused-opposite party no.2, who has
argued that the trial court has rightly allowed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. moved by
the accused-opposite party no.2 as the accused has set up a defence that the letter written in the
handwriting of the prosecutrix-petitioner to the accused would reveal her consent in setting up
physical relations. He submits that the said letter is in the handwriting of the prosecutrix, and if, the
said document which would have a direct bearing on the prosecution case, is not allowed to be
analyzed by expert, it would result in prejudice to the accused. He prays that the petition
challenging the impugned order dated 23.10.2024 be dismissed.

7.Learned counsel for the accused-opposite party no.2 has argued that the trial court vide
order dated 25.8.2022 has given valid reasons while refusing DNA test as the request was made by
the prosecutrix at a belated stage, therefore, the said order does not call for any interference by this
Court.

8.However, learned counsel for the petitioner-prosecutrix does not press the revision
petition challenging the impugned order dated 22.3.2021 dismissing her application under Section
319 Cr.P.C. to summon the additional accused persons-opposite party nos.2 to 4.

9.The prayer for withdrawal of the revision petition seeking summoning of additional
accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is not opposed by the learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2.

10.After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this
Court finds that merely because the prosecutrix had denied the handwriting in the subject letter to
4 All. Reyazuddin @ Bablu & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
941
be in her handwriting when she was confronted during her cross-examination cannot be
treated as a valid ground to deny the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 311 Cr.P.C. It is the case
of the prosecutrix herself that she was allegedly raped on 27.9.2015 by use of force and
subsequently also the accused exploited her resulting in her turning pregnant on two occasions.
Though, according to prosecutrix, the first pregnancy was terminated, but the second pregnancy
resulted in delivery of a child, therefore, if, the accused is making an attempt to rebut the
prosecution evidence to prove consent by the prosecutrix, the examination of the handwriting in the
subject letter by an expert would be a crucial piece of evidence for effective and proper
adjudication. Even otherwise, if, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the accusedopposite party no.2 is rejected, it would be amounting to depriving him of his right to fair trial. A
perusal of the impugned order dated 23.10.2024 would show that the trial court has given valid
reasons while accepting the application moved by the accused-opposite party no.2 under Section
311 Cr.P.C., therefore, the order dated 23.10.2024 does not call for any interference by this Court
in exercise of inherent powers.

11.As far as the issue of conducting the DNA test of the accused-opposite party no.2 with
the daughter delivered by the prosecutrix is concerned, the said report would also be a crucial piece
of evidence having a direct bearing on the prosecution case, and the reasons given by the trial court
that the trial has reached at an advanced stage or the investigating officer had not conducted the
test, as a good ground to reject the prayer. Thus, the order dated 25.8.2022 is not sustainable.

12.As a result, the application filed by the petitioner-prosecutrix for comparison of DNA of
the accused with the daughter of the prosecutrix is allowed and it is directed that the accusedopposite party no.2 shall give the requisite samples for the said purpose as and when directed by
the trial court.

13.Resultnatly, the Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 12417 of 2025 is dismissed; the
Application U/S 482 No. 42067 of 2022 stands allowed and the Revision Petition No. 1738 of 2021
is dismissed as withdrawn.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 941
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 12833 of 2026

Reyazuddin @ Bablu & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for consideration