Presumptio Juris versus DNA

Abstract

Presumptions are classified into two categories i.e.presumption huminis and presumption juris. Presumption Huminis means Presumption of Fact i.e. May Presume; Presumption Juris on the other hand means Presumption of Law i.e. Shall Presume and Conclusive Proof. Section 4 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with the Presumptions. Under the classification of conclusive proof, section 112 raised the presumption of law regarding the legitimacy of child. The conclusive proof of legitimacy of a child born during the continuance of a valid marriage is significantly analysed under section 112 of the Evidence Act. It says that the fact that a person was born during the continuance of a valid marriage or within 280 days after its dissolution but before the woman remarried someone else is itself a conclusive proof that the person to whom the mother of the child was married is the biological father of the child born. The Law Commission in its 185th Report, proposed certain amendments to Section 112 which are yet to be given force. The Commission proposed that in the case of blood tests, there can be evidence by way of DNA tests to prove that a person is not the father and added three more exceptions under section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act – (a) medical tests to prove impotency (b) blood tests (c) DNA test. Here, introduction and admission of DNA technology can actually be fruitful, to meet the ends of the justice. Blood group antigens, serum proteins, erythrocyte enzymes and salivary proteins are of importance in ascertaining the parentage with certainty. As Roscoe Pound put is: ―Law must be stable. But not stand still.‖