IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1946 OF 2025 (A)

BETWEEN:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KAUP CIRCLE, UDUPI DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

…APPELLANT (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDITIONAL SPP)

AND:

1. SHEKARA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS S/O. KUTTI RESIDING AT H.NO.7-18 Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA KADAMBU, MATTARU POST NAGARATHNA Location: High C ourt SHIRVA VILLAGE, KAUP TALUK of Karnataka UDUPI DISTRICT-576 101.

2. SUMITHRA W/O. RAVINDRA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT SHIRVA PADAVU SHIRVA POST, SHIRVA VILLAGE UDUPI-576 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUMITHRA G.M., ADVOCATE FOR R-1;

R2-SUMITHRA IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

* * *

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1)(3)

OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 19-12-2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1, UDUPI (SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES FILED UNDER POCSO ACT) IN SPL.C.NO.28 OF 2023 ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED NO.1/RESPONDENT, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376(2)(F)(N), 506 OF IPC, U/S 5(J)(II), 5(I)(N) READ WITH 6 OF POCSO ACT, BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL AND ETC.

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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)

The matter was heard, though it was listed only for consideration of the I.A. No.1 of 2025.

2. Upon perusal of the grounds of appeal and the judgment of the trial court, it is noted that in paragraph 29 of the judgment, the trial court extracted the evidence of PW2 (the victim). She did not support the case of the prosecution and stated that the accused had not done anything to her. She further stated that she was having an affair with him, that the same was informed to the police, and the police called him and registered the case. She also stated that she did not make any statement before the police.

3. PW2 (the victim) also admitted with regard to her age that she was a major. The sister, who was examined before the Court, did not support the case of the prosecution and stated that their parents are illiterate. There is no documentary evidence available, as PW2 was born at home and the family does not possess any official records; hence, no proper details have been furnished. A suggestion was made that her date of birth is 10.01.2005, and the same was admitted. Considering the admissions of PW1 and PW2, it indicates that the victim girl was above 18 years of age on the date of the incident. Further, there is no consistency in the evidence of PW1 and PW2, as well as PW16 to PW18, with regard to the age of the victim girl.

The same has been discussed in paragraph No.33.

4. Though the DNA result is positive, the accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of the DNA report. The said DNA test report, by itself, does not come to the aid of the prosecution in proving the case. The trial Court relying on the judgment of this Court in Nagappa v. State of Karnataka reported in 2020 (2) KLJ 642, acquitted the accused.

5. Having taken note of the evidence of the victim (PW2) and her sister (PW1) have not supported the case of the prosecution. The accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of the DNA report and the same is not substantive piece of evidence. PW3 to PW7 and PW12 have also turned hostile. Further, the victim did not state before the learned Magistrate, while recording her statement under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C. (marked as Ex.P5), anything with regard to the role of the accused in relation to her pregnancy.

6. PW10 - the doctor, who examined the victim.

PW11 - the doctor, who examined the accused, PW14 - the doctor, who conducted the medical examination and termination