A man accused of intentionally strangling a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton before she was allegedly raped by a different man has said “there was no physical contact” between them.
The prosecution alleged Ahmad Mulakhil, 23, and Mohammad Kabir, 24, “targeted” a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton last July.
Mulakhil denies two counts of rape, two counts of sexual assault, abducting a child and taking indecent photographs of a child.
However, the 23-year-old has pleaded guilty to one count of oral rape.
Meanwhile, Mr Kabir denies intentional strangulation, committing an offence with intent to commit a sexual offence and attempting to take a child.
Being cross-examined by the prosecution today, Kabir denied ever having “physical contact” with the girl.
He told jurors he and Mulakhil had planned to go to a friend’s house for dinner, denied they were following the girl from the park and further denied he made “sexual faces” at her.
Prosecutor, Mr Daniel Oscroft, put it to Mr Kabir that he intentionally strangled the 12-year-old on a bridge in Nuneaton.
Mr Kabir said: “If I have done that, why she didn’t say that to her witness at the time.”
The jury heard how in his defence statement signed in November 2025, Kabir said the girl “hugged him” from the side.
Giving evidence in the trial, he said: “She has tried, but I tried to push her away.
“She was just by my side, and she was trying to be physical, which I prevented.”
Put to him that he knew the girl was young, Mr Kabir told the jury: “I was busy using my TikTok at that time, it was her starting that conversation and she said ‘Hi, how are you? Where are you from?’
“I said I’m from Afghanistan, how old are you?
“She confessed she was 19, I believed she was 19.
“If I tell you I’m 22, you would believe me. She said she was 19, and I believed her.”
He denied that he told an interpreter on multiple occasions after his arrest that he thought the girl looked “small” and said he was not interested in her in a sexual way.
Mr Kabir confirmed he had been living in Nuneaton for eight months at the time of the alleged offences, but denied going out looking for Mulakhil and the girl on the evening of July 22, when he found out they were together.
Telling the court he was instead going to a butchers, the prosecution alleged CCTV and phone call records showed him walking around Nuneaton and repeatedly calling Mulakhil.
In his closing statement to the jury, prosecutor Mr Oscroft said: “The girl was and is 12 years old, some of you may have noticed from the agreed facts she was only just 12 years old at the time of the alleged offences. She was plainly vulnerable.
“It will be suggested to you the girl has given different or various accounts.
“It’s obvious isn’t it given her age and vulnerabilities, she would deny she told Mr Mulakhil she was 19.
“Any suggestion about her behaviour should be put into context – she was and remains a child, and obviously so.”
On Mr Mulakhil’s account of events, he said: “He accepted when examined, kissing and sucking her neck and that he took an indecent video with her.
“Ahmad Mulakhil would have you believe he didn’t do anything wrong, put bluntly he would have you accept he only did what he did because the girl led him into it.
“He kept on asking her age, he asked for her ID, he asked for her phone number.
“His interest in her was obviously sexual.”
Defending Ahmad Mulakhil, Marcus Harry told the jury in his closing statement: “The crown say you can be sure Mr Mulakhil is lying and you can be sure when it comes to the fundamental aspects of her account, but there are two different accounts of what happened.
“What I must do is focus on the evidence that she has given, the evidence on which the prosecution rely. It is evidence of which you must be sure to find mr Mulakhil guilty.
“When I cross examined the girl, I asked her ‘Did you tell Mulakhil you were 19?’. She said no, she told him she was 12. You’ve seen the footage and heard what she said, she lied.
“I’m not attempting to nitpick or attack, I’m attempting to point out where the crown say inconsistencies are important, you treat the evidence of the girl in the same way. You have to be sure of the evidence.”
The trial continues.