- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5989 CRL.RP No. 100036 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100036 OF 2019 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA PSI OF SIRSI RURAL P.S., THROUGH THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) AND: DASU S/O. YANKU GOUDA, AGE: 25 YEARS, R/O. GOGADDE HASANIGE, TQ. SIRSI, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI MALLIKARJUN B. MADANALLI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 (1) R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORD IN S.C.NO.5006/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR SITTING AT SIRSI IN S.C.NO.5006/2016 DATED 11.07.2018 AND TO EXAMINE THE RECORDS AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIAL JUDGE IN S.C.NO.5006/2016, DATED 11.07.2018 AND SET ASIDE THE SAME AND DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO FRAME CHARGE FOR THE CHARGED OFFENCES AND PROCEED WITH THE CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.04.09 11:33:42 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5989 CRL.RP No. 100036 of 2019 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Praveen Y. Devareddiyavar, learned High Court Government Pleader for revision petitioner and Sri Mallikarjun B. Madanalli for Sri Nagaraj C. Kolloori, learned counsel for respondent. 2. State is in revision challenging the order discharging the accused-respondent in S.C.No.5006/2016. 3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are as under: 4. A charge sheet came to be filed against the respondent by Sirsi Rural Police alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). Materials which are required to be appreciated, which resulted in filing the charge sheet is that accused repeatedly had the sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Accused denied the same. It is the further contention of the prosecutrix that on the assurance of marrying the prosecutirx, intimacy - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5989 CRL.RP No. 100036 of 2019 developed and accused had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix later on became pregnant and wanted the accused to marry her. Accused denied having relationship with the prosecutirx. Ultimately, accused married a lady by name Savitri and later on a complaint came to be filed. 5. During the course of investigation, DNA report was also received whereunder it was disclosed that accused is not the biological father of the child said to have born to the prosecutrix. 6. Therefore, an application came to be filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. seeking discharge of the accused from the case. Prosecution objected the application by filing detailed written objections. 7. Learned Sessions Judge heard the arguments of both sides noticing the fact that there was no repeated sexual intercourse even according to the complaint averments inasmuch as in the complaint it has been specifically mentioned that accused had only once physical - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5989 CRL.RP No. 100036 of 2019 relationship with the prosecutrix, discharged the accused from the charges levelled against him which was the subject matter of S.C.No.5006/2016. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, State is in revision. 9. Sri Praveen Y. Devareddiyavar contended that statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. made by the victim lady was sufficient enough to proceed with the case. Merely based on DNA report, learned Sessions Judge ought not to have discharged the accused inasmuch as it is the oral testimony of the victim lady that would prevail over the documentary evidence in a matter of this nature and thus sought for allowing the revision. 10. Per contra, Sri Mallikarjun B. Madanalli representing Sri Nagaraj Kolluri learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order. 11. Having heard the arguments of both the sides in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5989 CRL.RP No. 100036 of 2019 12. On such perusal of the material on record, as a part of investigation, the biological samples were collected by the Investigation Agency for the purpose of DNA test. Biological samples included the samples from the child which is said to have born on account of the physical relationship between the accused and the prosecutrix. 13. Admittedly, the DNA report clearly mentions that accused is not the biological father of the child which is said to have born to the prosecutrix. 14. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and also taking note of the fact that complaint averments mentioned that accused had physical relationship with the prosecutrix only once, learned Trial Judge was of the opinion that continuing with the criminal case is nothing but futile exercise and discharged the accused. 15. It is settled principles of law that requires no emphasis that the order of discharge does not amount to acquittal. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5989 CRL.RP No. 100036 of 2019 16. If there is any other material that is going to throw light in respect of the alleged crime, Investigation Agency is always at liberty to collect the same and file additional/supplementary charge sheet against the accused. 17. Accordingly, viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or perversity or patent fractal error to set aside the order of the learned Trial Judge which is impugned in the present revision petition. Accordingly, following order is passed. ORDER Criminal Revision Petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NAA CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 37