Giving clean chit to the accused, the court said the girl may be engaged with "somebody else".
"In the instant case, I find it difficult to ignore the DNA report, which totally exculpates the accused. The report throws in the probability that prosecutrix (girl) was having sexual intercourse with somebody else and it is that person, who impregnated her and she has, for reasons better known to her, concealed these facts from her mother as well as from this court.
The judge further said, "The DNA of the accused does not match with the DNA isolated from the blood sample of the child born to the girl and hence the accused is not the biological father of the female child".
The man, a carpenter by profession, was arrested by the police in July 2012 on the complaint lodged by girl's mother, who had alleged that while she was away for her job, he used to visit her house and raped her 16-year-old daughter.
Also Read
"After certain period of time, the girl felt pain in her abdomen and her mother took her to the nearby doctor who told her that she is pregnant," the police had said.
The police also said that the man has fathered the child to whom the girl gave birth in October 2012.
However, the man had claimed that he was falsely implicated in the case during the trial.