DNA mismatch won't absolve crime accused: Karnataka HC
Bengaluru, Oct 9: The Karnataka High Court has said that non-matching DNA samples would not absolve a crime accused since it is only corroborative evidence.
The court rejected the petition of a 43-year-old bus conductor who is accused of raping and impregnating a 12-year-old relative.
He rushed to the High Court, seeking quashing of the case after a DNA test showed that his blood sample and that of the foetus did not match.
The accused is a resident of Mysuru. He has been charged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The complaint was filed by the mother of the victim on February 19, 2021. The bus conductor is alleged to have sexually abused the girl due to which she became pregnant.
The police filed a charge-sheet in the case while the report of the DNA test was still pending. When the report came, it showed that the blood sample of the accused and the foetus did not match.
He approached the court, contending that he was not responsible for the victim becoming pregnant.
The government advocate contended that the girl had given a statement that the accused had sexually assaulted her and, therefore, notwithstanding the negative DNA report, the trial had to continue.
The judgement was pronounced by Justice M Nagaprasanna on September 15 who held that despite the DNA analysis showing that the accused was not the biological father of the foetus, "that would not absolve the petitioner in entirety for the offences so alleged."
The court said, "The alleged act has not at all happened cannot be the inference that can be drawn due to a DNA sample coming in favour of the petitioner. Mere production of DNA sample report before this court would not mean that it has to be taken as gospel truth without examination or cross-examination of the doctor who has rendered such opinion."
After quoting the statement of the victim-girl given to the court, the High Court said, "They are all unpardonable acts on the part of the petitioner unless proved otherwise. The DNA test cannot discredit what the victim has narrated in her statement that the petitioner had forcibly committed sexual acts on her."
Terming the DNA test as a corroborative evidence, the court dismissed the petition of the accused. "The DNA test cannot be said to be a conclusive evidence with regard to the allegations made against the petitioner. The DNA test can at best be used as a corroborative evidence," the Bench noted.
Quoting the Supreme Court in the Sunil Vs State of Madhya Pradesh case, the High Court said, "If a positive result of the DNA comes about against the accused, it would constitute clinching evidence against him for further proceeding. If the result is negative, favouring the accused, then the weight of other materials and evidence on record will still have to be considered for corroboration."
"Therefore, it does not form such a clinching evidence that would result in termination of proceedings against the accused," the Bench said.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Karnataka Assembly passes bill on Palace Grounds amid opposition protest
Bengaluru, Mar 6 (PTI): The Karnataka Assembly on Thursday passed the Bangalore Palace (Utilisation and Regulation of Land) Bill, reaffirming state ownership over 472 acres and 16 guntas of land here, amid protests by the opposition BJP.
During the discussion, Karnataka Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister H K Patil said the state government would have to provide Rs 200 crore worth of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for each acre of land, which means that for 15 acres, Rs 3,000 crore worth of TDR would be issued.
“If we accept it, then this 2-km stretch of road will become the costliest road in the world. If we accept it then how are we going to develop the city in later stages? How will you carry out development works?” asked Patil.
He also pointed out that this question was raised not only under the Congress government but also during the previous BJP regime.
However, the BJP-led cabinet has opposed the project.
ALSO READ: Budget session: Law Min. HK Patil introduces Microfinance bill in Karnataka assembly
“Suppose we agree to it then, what will be the valuation of the 472 acres? It will be lakhs and lakhs of crores of rupees. Can we accept?” Patil wondered.
The Minister said the government had previously exercised its executive powers to issue an ordinance, which was approved by the Governor. Now the government is bringing a bill with two amendments.
“In this bill, we have made provisions either to develop or drop the road development work,” Patil explained.
However, BJP state president B Y Vijayendra and BJP MLA Arvind Bellad opposed the move, alleging that the government was targetting Yaduveer Krishna Datta Chamaraja Wadiyar, the scion of the Mysuru royal family, and the BJP MP from Mysuru-Kodagu constituency out of political vendetta.
“We talk of 472 acres of Mysuru Maharaja but here there are many Maharajas who too own 400 acres, 500 acres and thousands of acres of land, which is known to everyone,” Bellad said.
He slammed the Congress government, saying political power should not be misused for personal vendetta.
“Why (the then Deputy Chief Minister) Siddaramaiah brought the law in 1996 pertaining to the Bangalore Palace? Why are you setting eyes on the Bangalore Palace?” he asked.
Vijayendra charged that Wadiyar won the election on BJP ticket so the state government realised that it should acquire it.
“This bill has been brought for political vengeance. We are not discussing whether Rs 3,000 crore is exorbitant or not but the moment Yaduveer became MP, the state government woke up. You should be ashamed. This house should not be used for political vendetta,” he said.
Intervening, Minister Priyank Kharge said Vijayendra should not have raised it because the intention behind building the road was noble.
According to him, the BJP too had the same plan when it was in power.
He sought to know whether thousands of crores of rupees be spent on a road which should have cost significantly less.
In response, BJP MLA B A Basavaraj (Byrathi) said issuing TDR will not be a burden on the state government and appealed to the ruling Congress to reconsider its stance.
Minister Ramalinga Reddy too explained that the Karnataka government acquired the entire land way back in 1996.
The Mysuru royal family went to the High Court, which gave ruling in favour of the state government. The royal family then approached the Supreme Court, where the case is still going on, the Minister pointed out.
“The final judgment is pending in the SC to decide whether the acquisition was right or wrong. If the SC says it’s the royal family’s property then let it be so. If the order is in the state government’s favour then we can take a decision. The bill is only about it,” Reddy explained.
Speaker U T Khader then called for a voice vote and the bill was passed by the Assembly amidst opposition BJP’s discontent.
