21.
The answer is: A
Explanation
The correct option is A: Shaik Fakruddin v. Shaik Mohammad Hasan AIR 2006 AP 48.
This is the case where the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the DNA test cannot rebut the conclusive presumption envisaged under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court observed that Section 112 is based on the principle of public policy and social stability, and it aims to prevent illegitimacy and protect the sanctity of marriage and family. The court also noted that the DNA test is not infallible and it may be influenced by various factors such as contamination, tampering, human error, etc. Therefore, the court ruled that the parties can avoid the rigor of such conclusive presumption only by proving non-access which is a negative proof.
The other options are incorrect because they are not related to the issue of DNA test and Section 112 of the Evidence Act.
Option B is a case where the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man for rape and murder of a minor girl based on circumstantial evidence and DNA test.
Option C is a case where the Supreme Court acquitted a man of rape charges after finding that the DNA test did not match with the victim's child.
Option D is a case where the Supreme Court held that a child born out of void marriage is legitimate and entitled to inherit the property of his father.