1. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.12.2007, the accused induced a minor girl by name Sowmya, aged about 14 years to come with him from her school and took her to an isolated place at Pemmanahalli Halla, committed sexual intercourse on her and thereafter caused her death by strangulating her with a towel, removed her earrings, slashed her neck with a razor and dropped a boulder on her face and thereafter concealed the dead-body beneath a bush and on the next day, poured acid on the face of the deceased with a view to cause disappearance of the evidence of murder, thereby committed the offences punishable under sections 366-A, 376, 302 & 201 Indian Penal Code.

2. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the father of the deceased (PW-1), on 16.12.2007 the PSI of Badavanahalli Police Station (PW-27) registered a case in Cr.No.16 of 2007 under Sections 302, 201 Indian Penal Code against five suspects named in the complaint. PW-30 the PSI took up the investigation, visited the spot, conducted the spot mahazar and inquest over the dead-body. He forwarded the dead-body for post-mortem examination and it was ascertained that the death was due to head injuries. Further investigation was continued by PW-31-PSI of the said police station. In the course of the investigation, PW.31 having come to know the involvement of the accused, arrested him on 31.12.2007. On the basis of the voluntary disclosures made by the accused, the Investigating Officer recovered a boulder, razor and an acid bottle said to have been used for the commission of the offence. The gold ornaments belonging to the deceased were recovered at the instance of the accused. Based on these incriminating materials, PW-31 laid the charge sheet against the accused alleging commission of the above offences.

3. The accused having denied the charges, the prosecution examined 31 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-31 and produced in evidence 34 documents marked as Exs-P1 to P34 and the material objects at M.Os.1 to 18. The accused took up a defence of total denial and sought to examine CW-6 as his witness. However, he later gave up the examination of the said witness.

4. Based on the above evidence, the learned Fast Track Court Judge, Madhugiri, by the impugned judgment found the accused guilty of all the above offences. Further, the learned Fast Track Court Judge having noticed that the accused had committed the offences in a highly brutal and ghastly manner was of the opinion that it was a rarest of rare case found it proper to award capital punishment on the accused and directed him to be hanged until death.

5. The Trial court has made a reference under Section 366 of Cr.P.C. seeking confirmation of the death sentence. It is numbered as Criminal Referred Case No.19 of 2010. The accused has preferred Crl.A.No.364 of 2013 challenging the order of conviction and the death penalty imposed on him by the trial court.

6. We have secured the records of the trial court and have heard Sri. Pavan Sagar, learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused in Crl.R.C.No.19 of 2010 and Sri. Arjun, learned counsel for the appellant - accused in Crl.A.No.364 of 2013 and Sri. Vijayakumar S. Majage, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for State.

7(a) Sri. Pavan Sagar, the learned Amicus Curiae contends that the order rendered by the trial court is highly erroneous and against the basic principles of law and natural justice. The impugned order is cursory, peremptory and capricious. Accused was not named in the F.I.R. Instead, the finger of suspicion was directed right from the inception against one lawyer by name Shivanna who was having close intimacy with the deceased. It has come on record that ever since the commission of the offence the said lawyer Shivanna was absconding. The material witnesses have deposed that the deceased and the said lawyer Shivanna were having illicit intimacy. In fact, the complainant himself had named the said Lawyer Shivanna as one of the suspects. Inspite of it,