GANGADHARAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur in Spl.SC No.71/2018 dtd. 15/12/2018 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under Sec. 376(2)(1) of the IPC, 1860 and Ss. 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and so also for offences under Sec. 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989. This appeal is filed seeking intervention of the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence awarded by the Trial Court.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel Shri Veeranna G. Tigadi for the appellant / accused, who appears before court physically and so also the learned HCGP for the State. Perused the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Trial Court in Spl.SC No.71/2018. This impugned judgment consists in all Page No.1 to Page No.25 inclusive of the views expressed by the Trial Court to convict the accused on appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution by subjecting to examination PW1 to PW25 and so also getting marked several documents as Exhibits P1 to P22. But Exhibit 'D' series have been got marked as the copies of the MLC register, which are two in number apart from getting marked MO-1 to MO-9.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant in this matter fairly submits that though the Trial Court has commanded over the evidence of PW-1 to PW-25 and so also commanded over several documents which have been got marked inclusive of material objects, but however, no fair opportunity has been given to the appellant who is a convicted person and also aged about 62 years, that too convicted for heinous offences under Sec. 376(2)(1) and even Ss. 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 inclusive of offences under the Special Enactment of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989. Though the accused who is aged about 62 years had faced trial for heinous offences which are stated supra and also the charges were framed against the accused, but the case in Spl.SC No.71/2018 has ended in conviction by order dtd. 15/12/2018. But counsel for the appellant has taken me through certain materials facilitated by the prosecution and also secured by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation in order to lay the charge-sheet. The accused is said to have committed the alleged offences as on 19/11/2018 and he was apprehended by the Investigating Agency on 20/11/2018. Subsequently charge-sheet was laid after completion of the entire investigation of the heinous offences. But the evidence was commenced on 5/12/2018 and on closure of the evidence on the part of the prosecution as on 12/12/2018, thereafter the judgment of conviction was rendered on 15/12/2018.