This appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 20.10.2015 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge Gadag, in S.C.No.36/2014.

2. The appellant/accused, who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(L), 448 and 354(c) of IPC preferred the above appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the same on the grounds as mentioned in the appeal memorandum.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments are that P.W.8 filed the complaint as per Ex.P-15, wherein she has alleged that she is the native of Budihal village residing in the house property, which she owns. On 07.10.2013 morning at about 10.00a.m., she went to the house of one Virupaxappa Mudiayappa Kukanur i.e., P.W.6, to talk with him about the transaction in respect of plot and at that time Shrikant Goudar S/o Parvatha Gouda i.e., accused herein, criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant and when the victim girl i.e., the daughter of the complainant, was taking bath in the said house, the accused removed his clothes and he became nude and he was exhibiting his body to the daughter of the complainant. In order to give sexual excitement to the daughter of the complainant, the accused, exhibited his body before her and he has also seen and observed her parts of the body and when he was making an attempt to commit forcible sexual intercourse on her, the complainant came back to her house, it appeared to her that the said attempt of rape was stopped, but she does not know what has happened earlier to that. She was not able to know what has happened to her daughter, as her daughter is handicapped, deaf and dumb, so it was not possible for her daughter to convey the same to the complainant. Hence, the complainant has requested immediately to arrest the accused person, who has committed such heinous act and take legal action against him by registering the case attempt to rape. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered against the appellant herein for the said offences. The FIR came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 511, 509, 376, 448, 354(c) of IPC as per Ex.P-18.

4. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer, after completing the investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused person for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(L), 448, 354(c) and 509 of IPC.

5. After hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused for the said offences and as the accused pleaded as not guilty, the case was posted for trial.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution, in all, examined 23 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 23 and produced the documents Exs.P-1 to P-29 and got marked the material objects M.Os.1 to 7. On the side of the defence, no witnesses were examined nor any documents were produced.

7. After hearing the arguments on both sides, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/accused for the said offences. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court in the above appeal.

8. Heard the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-accused and also the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State.

9. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has submitted that when the victim girl is said to be dumb and deaf and mentally retarded, the learned JMFC Court, which recorded the statement of the victim girl under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., ought to have followed the procedure as contemplated under Section 119 of Indian Evidence Act, which procedure is not followed in this case, which vitiates the entire proceedings. He has also submitted that the proceedings of recording the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is said to have been videographed as per Ex.P-27, but the copy of the said C.D. was not at all furnished to the accused. It is also his submission that the witnesses i.e., P.Ws.13 and 14, who are said to be the experts in translatin