The reliability of DNA evidence necessitates careful consideration in cases involving accusations of sexual offenses, and insufficient evidence justifies discharge.

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 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 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 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 fi