- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3258-DB CRL.A No. 1222 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1222 OF 2025 (A) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE WOMEN POLICE STATION PANDESHWARA, MANGALURU D.K. DISTRICT STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, H.C.G.P.) AND: 1. SHAHIM @ MOHAMMED SHAHEEM S/O. MOHAMMED RAFIQ AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS RESIDING AT NEAR JNANADEEPA SCHOOL CHETHAN NAGARA, KUMPALA ULLAL TALUK-575 017. 2. JOHARA W/O. MOHAMMAD HATHIM AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS CHEMBUGUDDE, PREMANOOR ULLAL-575 017. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI LETHIF B., ADVOCATE, FOR R-1, & R-2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) * * * Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3258-DB CRL.A No. 1222 of 2025 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 29-1-2024 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-II (POCSO), D.K., MANGALURU, THEREBY ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 376(2)(n) OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 6 OF POCSO ACT. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH) Heard Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the appellant-State, and Sri Lethif B., learned counsel for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the accused befriended the minor victim, aged about 14 years, through Instagram. On 28.01.2023 in the evening, he went to Fathima Residency Apartment, situated at Chembugudde, Ullal, where the victim was residing, took her to the fourth floor of the building and subjected her for sexual intercourse. It is further case of the prosecution that the accused in the pretext of marrying the victim, he repeatedly had sexual intercourse on - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3258-DB CRL.A No. 1222 of 2025 her, at the same place, for about a week and pursuant to which, the victim became pregnant. Hence, a complaint was lodged by the victim before Mangaluru Women Police Station. 3. The case was registered by setting the law into motion and during investigation, the accused was arrested, he was remanded to judicial custody and subsequently, he was enlarged on bail. After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet against the accused. 4. The case was assigned to the Special Court. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P21. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and he did not claim any defence evidence. The trial Court, having considered both oral and documentary evidence on record, acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Being aggrieved by the said acquittal order, the present appeal is filed by the State. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3258-DB CRL.A No. 1222 of 2025 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant-State would vehemently contend that the trial Court has grossly erred in not appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Though Ex.P21-DNA report categorically demonstrates the accused is the reason behind the victim becoming pregnant, the trial Court ought not to have acquitted the accused. Further, in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the accused did not explain the same. Hence, the matter requires admission. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-accused would submit that only based on Ex.P21-DNA report, the accused cannot be convicted. Further, the trial Court considering the judgment of this Court has rightly come to the conclusion that on the sole basis of the DNA report, the accused cannot be convicted. The very witnesses, i.e. PWs.1 and 3, the victim and the mother of the victim, have not supported the case of the prosecution and when there is no corroborated piece of evidence, the trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. Hence, it does not require any interference by admitting the appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3258-DB CRL.A No. 1222 of 2025 7. Having heard the learned counsel on both side, no doubt, PW1 is the victim, aged about 14 years. PW2 is the Doctor, who examined the victim. PW3 is the mother of the victim. PW11 is also the Doctor/DNA expert, who issued Ex.P21-DNA report. The victim-PW1 was subjected to medical examination and Ex.P21 is the DNA report, which clearly discloses that the accused is the biological father of the product of conception of the victim. Only based on the DNA report, the accused cannot be convicted. The trial Court relied on the principles in the case of Sri Paramesha v. State of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No.1959 of 2019 decided on 11.12.2020, that when the preservation method adopted for the samples are not properly brought on record, there are chances for tampering of the samples and under such circumstances, the prosecution has to establish the corroboration of such evidence and its truth. However, the prosecution has not established the method of preservation and transportation of the production of conception as per the protocol. Therefore, the trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, held that initial burden lies on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3258-DB CRL.A No. 1222 of 2025 the prosecution and the same is not proved by the prosecution. Hence, by giving the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused, the trial Court acquitted the accused. There is no other corroborative piece of evidence to convict the accused. The victim and the mother of the victim themselves have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. Further, the victim has not pointed out the role played by the accused. When the victim and mother of the victim have not supported the case of the prosecution, the evidence of PWs.5 to 10 does not in anyway help the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused. When such being the case, we do not find any grounds to admit the appeal. In view the discussions made hereinabove, we proceed to pass the following O R D E R Criminal appeal is dismissed as no grounds to admit the appeal. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8