Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad, Division Bench of Justice R. Nataraj and Justice Rajesh Rai K dismissed a criminal appeal challenging the acquittal of an accused in a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act case. The Division Bench declined to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court which had acquitted the accused of all charges. The appeal was filed by the State seeking to set aside the acquittal verdict issued by the Special Court for trial of cases under the POCSO Act.

In its final directive, the High Court concluded that the Trial Court had taken a plausible view of the evidence presented, particularly noting that except for the DNA report, there was no corroborative evidence available. The Bench observed that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt as the victim and key witnesses had turned hostile, and the DNA evidence, while significant, could not independently sustain a conviction. Consequently, the High Court upheld the acquittal and dismissed the State's appeal.

Also Read: Supreme Court : "Fraud Unravels Everything," Recalls Its Own Judgment and Sets Aside High Court Order in NOIDA Land Dispute

The appeal was filed under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the State of Karnataka, represented by the Police Sub-Inspector, Siddapur Police Station, Sirisi Sub Division, Uttar Kannada, Karwar, through the Additional State Public Prosecutor. The appeal sought leave to challenge the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.08.2021 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, U.K., Karwar (Special Court for trial of cases under POCSO Act) in Special Case No.20/2016.

The prosecution alleged that the accused, a 24-year-old resident of Boodigoppa, Savadatti Taluk, Belagavi District, came to Kibballi Village, Balur, for manual labor involving tree cutting and became acquainted with the victim, a 17-year-old girl. According to the complaint, on 15.01.2015 at approximately 9:00 p.m., the accused engaged in sexual activity with the victim near a garden land within the Kyadagi forest area, persuading her on the promise of marriage. Subsequently, the relationship continued, resulting in the victim becoming pregnant.

When the accused allegedly began to avoid her, the victim filed a complaint with the Siddapura Police on 29.01.2016, recorded as Ex. P20. An FIR was registered under Sections 376(2) of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act in Crime No.37/2016, as per Ex.P21. The police, including PWs.11, 16, 17, and 21, conducted the investigation and submitted a charge sheet against the accused. In the interim, the victim gave birth to a girl child, and an additional charge sheet was filed.

To support the prosecution's case, 22 witnesses were examined (PWs.1 to 22), and 37 documents were marked as exhibits (Ex. P1 to Ex. P37). However, during the trial, the victim (PW.12), her father (PW.18), uncle (PW.19), and grandmother (PW.13) turned hostile and denied the allegations. The victim stated in her testimony that the accused had not committed any sexual act with her and that she did not know who the father of her child was.

The prosecution relied heavily on the DNA report (Ex. P33), which established that the accused was the biological father of the victim's child. Medical witnesses including PW.6, PW.8, PW.15, and PW.22 supported the chain of evidence related to the victim's pregnancy and childbirth. PW.6 had conducted an ultrasound scan on 15.02.2016 and reported a 33-week 2-day-old fetus. PW.8, a gynaecologist, confirmed the victim gave birth on 01.03.2016. PW.15 collected blood samples of the victim, child, and accused, and PW.22 issued the DNA report confirming biological paternity.

The defense contended that in the absence of direct evidence and with critical witnesses turning hostile, the DNA evidence alone was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Trial Court agreed with this contention and acquitted the accused, leading to the appeal by the State.

The High Court, upon review, framed the key legal question as: "Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 376(2) of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act?"

The Division Bench observed that: "The prosecutrix-PW.12, her father-PW.18, her uncle-PW.19 and grandmother-PW.13 have turned hostile to the prosecution case." The Court further noted that the prosecution relied mainly on the testimonies of medical professionals and police officials.

The Court recorded: "PW.22 conducted the DNA test and issued the report as per Ex. P33. As per Ex. P33, PW.22 stated that the victim is the biological mother and accused is the biological father of the baby born to the victim."

However, the Court noted a contradiction: "PW.12-victim, her grandmother, father and other relatives, unequivocally deposed that the accused did not commit any sexual act on the victim."

Regarding the evidentiary value of DNA reports, the Bench stated: "No doubt, evidentiary value can be attached to the DNA report issued by the expert as per Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, if the same does not corroborate the testimony of victim, in such circumstance, the Court has to test the veracity of the report based on facts and evidence of the case on hand."

The Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Manoj v. State of M.P. (2023) 2 SCC 353: "DNA evidence can be contaminated when DNA from another source gets mixed with DNA relevant to the case. ... Because extremely small samples of DNA can be used as evidence, greater attention to contamination issues is necessary while locating, collecting and preserving."

It also cited Pattu Rajan v. State of T.N. (2019) 4 SCC 771: "Like all other opinion evidence, the probative value accorded to DNA evidence also varies from case to case... Thus, it cannot be said that the absence of DNA evidence would lead to an adverse inference against a party, especially in the presence of other cogent and reliable evidence on record in favour of such party."

Further, the Court relied on Premjibhai Bachubhai Khasiya v. State of Gujarat and Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 5 SCC 294, recording: "If the DNA report is the sole piece of evidence, even if it is positive, it cannot conclusively fix the identity of the miscreant."

Applying these principles, the Bench held: "Except the DNA report, absolutely no other corroborative piece of evidence is available on record to connect the accused with the alleged offence. ... The DNA report cannot be solely relied to convict the accused."

Also Read: Cruel Police Torture Led To Custodial Death | Chhattisgarh High Court Calls It An Intolerable Betrayal Of Justice | Conviction Altered To Culpable Homicide | Four Policemen Get 10 Years Rigorous Imprisonment

The Court concluded that the Trial Court’s decision did not suffer from any legal infirmity and represented a plausible view based on the evidence available on record.

In its concluding paragraph, the Bench stated: "In an acquittal judgment, if the Trial Court has taken a plausible view, then the Appellate Court shall not casually interfere with such judgment of acquittal."

Accordingly, the Court stated: "The Criminal Appeal No.100570/2022 is hereby dismissed."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellant: Sri A.M. Gundawade, Additional State Public Prosecutor

For the Respondent: Sri Jagadish Patil and Sri M.C. Hukkerri, Advocates for PW.12 and PW.18

Case Title: State of Karnataka v. XXXX

Neutral Citation: NC: 2025: KHC-D:8847-DB

Case Number: CRL.A No.100570 of 2022

Bench: Justice R. Nataraj and Justice Rajesh Rai K