- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28179 CRL.RP No. 41 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 41 OF 2021 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY EAST POLICE STATION CHAMARAJANAGAR, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP.) AND: NAGENDRA S/O MAHADEVASHETTY @ BENKI MAHADEVA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDING AT BUDAMBALLIMOLE VILLAGE CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK-571313. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VEERABHADRASWAMY H.P., ADV.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF DISCHARGE DATED 27.06.2018 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGARA (SITTING AT KOLLEGALA) IN S.C.NO.5165/2018 AND ALLOW THIS CRL.RP. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.08.11 10:45:13 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28179 CRL.RP No. 41 of 2021 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL ORDER The State has preferred this appeal against the order dated 27.06.2018 passed on application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C in S.C.No.5165/2018 by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara (sittting at Kollegala). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this revision petition are referred to as per their status and rank before the Trial Court. 3. The brief facts leading to this revision petition are that investigating officer has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. 4. It is alleged by the prosecution that complainant Nagamma being younger sister of victim Mahadevi lodged a complaint stating that about 9 months prior to 03.11.2017, one - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28179 CRL.RP No. 41 of 2021 day at about 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon, near Erasavadi Village, the victim was grazing their cattle, by that time, the accused by name Nagendra came to the spot and molested her. Thereafter, the accused forcibly carried her to a nearby bush and raped/performed sexual intercourse on CW.2 and as a result of the said sexual intercourse, on 05.11.2017, CW.2 delivered a male child at Government Hospital, Chamarajanagar. It is also stated that the accused has threatened CW.2 with dire consequences / to kill her, if she reveals about the incident to anybody. As such, the police has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the alleged commission of offence. 5. After filing of the charge sheet, the case was registered against accused in C.C.No.50/2018. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered in S.C.No.5165/2018. Before the Sessions Court, application under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure was filed seeking to discharge the accused for the alleged commission of offence as there are no material to attract the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28179 CRL.RP No. 41 of 2021 of Indian Penal Code. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court has allowed the petition and discharged the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the State has preferred this revision petition. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader Sri. M R Patil submits that the Sessions Court without considering the charge sheet and material placed by the prosecution in its proper perspective has discharged the accused which is a miscarriage of justice. The trial Court has erred in discharging the accused mainly on the ground that the DNA examination report and medical report is in total contradiction to the theory of prosecution. Further, it is submitted that the trial Court has not considered the seriousness of offence and role played by respondent in the alleged offence. Further, the Court below failed to notice that accused has committed heinous offence against the victim and threatened her and also not appreciated the statements of CW.1, CW.2, CW.3, CW.17 and CW.18. CW.2-victim has stated about the heinous act committed by respondent which is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused and there is prima-facie material to proceed against - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28179 CRL.RP No. 41 of 2021 the accused for the commission of alleged offence. On all these grounds, he sought to allow the revision petition. 7. As against this, learned counsel for respondent would submit that there is no prima-facie material produced against the accused and the trial Court has rightly discharged the accused for the commission of alleged offence and sought to dismiss the revision petition. 8. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned High Court Government Pleader for State and learned counsel for revision petitioner. 9. On the basis of the complaint filed by Smt. Nagamma, the case was registered against accused Nagendra for offence punishable under Section 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and after investigation, the investigating officer has submitted the charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable for the alleged commission of offence. Thereafter, the case was registered in C.C.No.50/2018 and subsequently, case was committed to Sessions Court in S.C.No.5165/2018. In the meanwhile, learned counsel for accused filed application under Section 227 of Code of Civil Procedure to discharge the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28179 CRL.RP No. 41 of 2021 accused for the alleged commission of offence as the FSL report reveals that the accused blood sample is excluded being the biological father of the male baby and the Trial Court allowed the same and discharge the accused for the commission of alleged offence. 10. It is the specific case of the prosecution that as per the charge sheet, CW.1 being the younger sister of CW.2 alleged that about 9 months prior to 03.11.2017, one day at about 2.00 p.m., near Erasavadi village, when the victim was grazing cattle, the accused came to the spot and molested her. It is also alleged that the accused forcibly carried her to a nearby bush and performed sexual intercourse on CW.2 and the accused threatened her of dire consequences to kill her etc., if she reveals about the incident to anybody.. As a result of the said sexual intercourse, CW.2 delivered a male child at Government Hospital, Chamarajanagar. Thus, the accused has committed the alleged offence. 11. The prosecution has submitted the DNA report and on perusal of the same, it is seen that the blood sample obtained from the accused, the victim and the baby were - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28179 CRL.RP No. 41 of 2021 received by the FSL, Bengaluru in proper condition/good order. Further, the said samples were subjected to DNA profiling and thereafter, the said FSL Centre has given conclusion which reads as follows: "From the DNA profile results of the blood samples sent in item No.1, 2 and 3, it is found that: 1. The DNA profile of the male baby, sample blood sent in item No.2 is consistent with having come from the offspring of Mahadevi and matching with the DNA profile of the sample blood sent in item No.1. 2. The DNA profile of the male baby, sample blood sent in item No.2 is not matching with the DNA profile of the Nagendra, sample blood sent in item No.3. Therefore, (1) Mahadevi, sample blood sent in item No.1 is included from being the biological mother and source of DNA of male baby, sample blood sent in item No.2. (2) Nagendra, sample blood sent in item No.3 is excluded from being the biological father of the male baby, sample blood sent in item No.2". 12. The Trial Court has observed that as per DNA report, mother of male baby is the victim and accused is not the father of the said male baby. The Trial Court by relying on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Deo Yadav vs. State of UP reported in (2014) 5 SCC 509, held - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28179 CRL.RP No. 41 of 2021 that DNA as a scientific/medical test is fully trustworthy and infallible. Further, the prosecution has not disputed the DNA report submitted by the concerned authority. By relying on the DNA report and also on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dharam Deo case (supra), the Trial Court has rightly allowed the application filed under Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 13. Keeping in mind the aforesaid decision and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case so also the reasons assigned by the trial Court to discharge the accused, I do not find any error/legal infirmities in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. 14. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Criminal revision petition is dismissed. ii. The order dated 27.06.2018 passed on application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. in S.C.No.5165/2018 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar (Sititng at Kollegala) is hereby confirmed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28179 CRL.RP No. 41 of 2021 iii. Registry is directed to send copy of this order along with trial court records forthwith, to the concerned Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30