- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5092-DB CRL.A No. 1698 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH 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.1698 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MOODABIDRE POLICE STATION MANGALURU CITY REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP) AND: 1. SRI. CHETHAN SALIAN @ POORNESH @ CHETHAN S/O KRISHNAPPA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT D.NO.3-37, CHETHAN NIVASA, MUGERADKA, IDU VILLAGE AND POST KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576101. 2. SMT. SHARADA W/O BALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS SAVITHA NIVASA MANTRADY VILLAGE MOODABIDRE TALUK MANGALURU CITY Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5092-DB CRL.A No. 1698 of 2025 KARNATAKA-575001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALATESH H., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) OF CR.PC (419 (1) AND (3) OF BNSS) PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 09.10.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE/ FTSC-II (POCSO) D.K, MANGALURU, IN SPL.C.NO.211/2023 ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT - ACCUSED OF THE CHARGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376(2)(n) OF IPC SECTION 6 OF POCSO ACT. THIS APPEAL 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) 1. Heard the learned Addl. SPP for appellant/State and also the counsel appearing for the accused/respondent No.1 and though respondent No.2 is served, unrepresented. 2. This appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court having considered the material available on record, particularly - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5092-DB CRL.A No. 1698 of 2025 the evidence of victim who did not support the case of the prosecution has been discussed in paragraph No.18 wherein she categorically deposed that there is no any such alleged forceful intercourse said to have been committed by the accused and she even deposed to the extent of that her date of birth is 15.11.2005. Even mother also who has been examined as P.W.4 also not supported the case of prosecution and clearly deposed that accused has not caused any trouble or sexual harassment to the victim at any point of time and victim has not stated any facts before her nor the Police have enquired her and at no point of time, the victim had become pregnant nor she has visited the hospital with the victim and has not terminated the pregnancy of the victim at any point of time except admitting her signatures found on Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4. 3. The Trial Court also taken note of evidence of Doctor-P.W.3 as well as P.W.9 and also there is a report of DNA that accused is the biological father of the fetus. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5092-DB CRL.A No. 1698 of 2025 However, considering the judgment of this Court reported in 2020(3) KCCR 1704 in case of Nagappa V/s State of Karnataka extracted paragraph No.13 to 15, comes to the conclusion that only based on the DNA report, accused cannot be convicted in the absence of any corroborated DNA test report and also taken note of except uncorroborated DNA test report and evidence of Doctor who examined the victim, there are no substantial oral testimonies of victim or mother or any other independent mahazar witnesses and comes to the conclusion that the very DNA Test and report and also the procedure to be followed in subjecting him for test regarding collection of blood samples, storage of the blood samples in EDTA Vacutainer, transportation of the blood samples in a safe mode, collection of the product of conception and keeping the same in salt, transportation of the same and handing over the same to FSL, question of believing the same also doesn't arise and Court comes to the conclusion that prosecution has not discharged the initial burden of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5092-DB CRL.A No. 1698 of 2025 proving the guilt of the accused for the offence and also Section 29 and 30 of POCSO Act regarding the guilt of the accused also cannot be drawn when the P.W.1 and P.W.2 who are the victim as well as mother have not supported the case of prosecution and acquitted. 4. The counsel appearing for the State in her argument would contend that the Trial Court committed an error in not relying upon the Ex.P.17-DNA report. It has been proved that accused is biological father of the fetus and mother is the victim girl and DNA report clearly reveals that accused himself is the biological father. The counsel also would submits that even though victim has not supported the case of prosecution, she has not denied her signature in the complaint when the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The learned trial Judge has ignored the evidence available on record, particularly the acceptable evidence on record and in any angle, the judgment of the Trial Court is not sustainable. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5092-DB CRL.A No. 1698 of 2025 5. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the respondent would submits the Trial Court has taken note of evidence available on record, particularly the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 who have not supported the case of prosecution i.e., victim as well as the mother and the same has been discussed in paragraph Nos.18 and 19 and also considering the judgment of this Court with regard to based on the sole ground of DNA Test, accused cannot be convicted and passed the reasoned order. 6. Having heard the appellant’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent and also considering the material available on record, P.W.1 is the victim and whose evidence not supports the case of prosecution and she categorically deposes before the Court that there was no any forceful sexual act and P.W.2 who is the mother also not support the case of prosecution. No doubt P.W.3 -Doctor examined and says that P.W.1 made the statement, but other witness is P.W.9 who collected the blood sample of the fetus as well as the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5092-DB CRL.A No. 1698 of 2025 accused and victim. No doubt the DNA test report is positive which is marked as Ex.P.17. However, taking into note of when the victim herself has not pointing out the role of the accused during her evidence, when the counsel appearing for the State brought to notice of this Court that there is an admission that the accused had agreed to marry the victim and the same is elicited from the cross examination of P.W.1 and hence, the P.W.1 has not supported the case of prosecution. No doubt even such admission also will not takes away the case of the accused since the P.W.1 has not pointing out the very role of the accused. When such being the case, the Trial Court also having considered the principles laid down in the judgment referred supra of this Court, even taken note of the relevant paragraphs while extending the benefits in favour of the accused in paragraph No.25 and also taken note of judgment of different Courts i.e., Gujarat High Court in the case of State of Gujarat V/s Jayanthibhai Somabhai Khant reported in 2015 Cr.L.J.No.3209 and Court also held that - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5092-DB CRL.A No. 1698 of 2025 holding the DNA test is unsafe to convict accused solely based on DNA test and also an observation is made that in the present case also except the uncorroborated DNA test report and evidence of Doctor who examined the victim, there are no substantial testimonies of victim or mother or any independent mahazar witnesses. When such being the case, when there are no material and the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 particularly victim evidence that is P.W.1 not inspires the confidence of the Court. Hence, we do not find any ground to admit the appeal for re-consideration. 7. In view of the discussions made above, we pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19