Latest news with #RajeshRaiK
News18
26-07-2025
- News18
Despite DNA Match With Child, Karnataka HC Refuses To Overturn Acquittal In POCSO Rape Case
The court said while the DNA test confirmed the man was the child's father, absence of supporting oral evidence, especially from the victim, rendered the case legally insufficient The Karnataka High Court recently declined to interfere with the acquittal of a man accused of raping a minor, holding that a DNA match proving paternity does not automatically establish guilt under criminal law. The state had approached the Dharwad Bench of the High Court seeking to overturn the August 2021 acquittal of a 24-year-old man from Belagavi district, who was tried under Section 376(2) of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. However, the high court refused to do so, reasoning that while the DNA test confirmed he was the father of the child born to the victim, the absence of any supporting oral evidence, especially from the victim herself, rendered the prosecution's case legally insufficient. The prosecution case was that in January 2015, the accused, then working as a daily wage labourer, allegedly entered into a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old girl in a remote area near Kyadagi forest, Uttara Kannada. The girl later became pregnant. However, it was only a year later that she lodged a police complaint after the accused began to avoid her. A medical examination confirmed her pregnancy, and a DNA test later matched the accused as the biological father of the baby. But at trial, the victim, along with her close family members, turned hostile, denying that any sexual contact had taken place. With 22 witnesses examined and 37 documents submitted, the prosecution pinned its case almost entirely on medical and forensic evidence. The trial court, however, found the evidence inadequate to meet the threshold of 'beyond reasonable doubt" and acquitted the accused. Challenging this, the state contended that the DNA evidence alone was conclusive of the offence. The high court disagreed. In its judgment delivered on July 10, the bench of Justices R Nataraj and Rajesh Rai K underlined that scientific evidence such as DNA tests must be evaluated in the broader context of all available facts and testimonies. 'The victim herself firmly stated that the accused did not have any sexual intercourse with her. She is not aware who the father of her child is. Even her parents and relatives also deposed similarly. In such circumstance, the DNA report cannot be solely relied to convict the accused," the bench observed. The court drew upon precedents from both the Supreme Court and other high courts, emphasising that DNA profiling is rooted in statistical probability and cannot be treated as infallible. It also warned against treating such reports as conclusive in the absence of procedural safeguards around collection, preservation, and contamination. Citing the principle that appellate courts should not lightly interfere with acquittals where the trial court has taken a plausible view, the high court declined to re-evaluate the trial court's findings. The appeal was dismissed. Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Time of India
07-06-2025
- Time of India
In High Court: Speeding not always negligence
criminal negligence Karnataka High Court fatal motor accident Thehas determined that driving at high speed alone does not constitute rashness or negligence under law, leading to the acquittal of a person previously convicted under IPC Sections 279 and 304A for aJustice Rajesh Rai K, presiding over a single-judge bench, observed that 'rashness and negligence are multi-faceted concepts which cannot be comprehended and interpreted in isolation. It significantly depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.'The Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Karnataka vs Satish (1998), where it was held that high speed alone is not sufficient to prove rash or negligent driving unless supported by other incriminating circumstances. The judgment reinforces the idea that liability for accidents must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, considering surrounding petitioner, represented by Advocate Pavan Kumar MS, had challenged the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, which had convicted him for allegedly causing a fatal accident. Government Pleader Channappa Erappa appeared for the per the prosecution, the accused was driving the car that allegedly struck a motorbike, leading to the death of its rider. The complaint was filed by the pillion rider, who claimed that he had stopped to relieve himself when the incident occurred. Based on his statement, a case was registered, and the accused was convicted by the lower the High Court found inconsistencies in the evidence presented. The testimony of the prosecution's sole eyewitness (PW-1) was found to be questionable. 'The evidence of this witness generates doubt in the mind of the Court that he is a chance witness, who appeared out of thin air and later disappeared after adducing evidence,' the Court was also absent during the spot inspection and identified the vehicle only at the police station. He admitted the accused called him and took the injuried to the hosptial.
