[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Shahim @ Mohammed Shaheem on 21 January, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:3258-DB
CRL.A No. 1222 of 2025
HC-KAR
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
Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
MOUNESHWARAPPA
NAGARATHNA RESIDING AT NEAR JNANADEEPA SCHOOL
Location: High Court
of Karnataka 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)
***
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:3258-DB
CRL.A No. 1222 of 2025
HC-KAR
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
NC: 2026:KHC:3258-DB
HC-KAR
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.
NC: 2026:KHC:3258-DB
HC-KAR
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.
NC: 2026:KHC:3258-DB
HC-KAR
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
NC: 2026:KHC:3258-DB
HC-KAR
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
ORDER
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
