The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish the continuity in the chain of circumstances in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and the need for cogent and firmly established circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused.

JUDGMENT

B.A.Patil, J. - This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of sentence dated 28.04.2015 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Koppal in PCSO S.C. 13/2014, whereunder the appellant-accused No.1 was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for l ife til l his last breath for the offences punishable u/s 376(2) (1), 376A and 376D and to pay a f ine of Rs.1,000/- for each of the offences. He is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for l ife for the offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, he is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence punishable u/s 6 of the POCSO Act 2012 (hereinafter called for short as 'Act' ).

2. The genesis of the case as per the contents of the complaint are that father of the victimcomplainant had six daughters, deceased along with his another daughter by name Sangeetha and the victim used to go to the lands to cut and collect the grass for their cattle. In that l ight, on 06.05.2014 at about 1 p.m. the victim alone went to cut the grass for the cattle, thereafter ti l l 4 p.m. she has not returned to the house, the complainant and his son by name Neelappa and his son-in-law Umesh searched for the daughter of complainant upto 6 pm but they did not secure her. They returned home under the surmise that she might have gone to their relative's house at Jinnapur thanda where there was a fair.

3. At about 10 p.m. when the complainant, his son-in-law Umesh were in the house, juveni le offender Suresh Karabari came to his house and called Umesh stating that cattle were untied in the land and they were to be tied as they were grazing the crop. The said Umesh went along with Suresh Karabari to the land at about 11 p.m. and from there he telephoned to the complainant and cal led him to come to the land of CW 17 immediately. He also informed that the victim is there in the land. The complainant and his son Neelappa went to the land of CW17 and asked about the victim, then he informed that the victim is dead and took him into the standing Jowar crop and pointed out the dead body of the deceased which was lying in supine position (face was positioned towards sky). With the help of torch they found that the blood was oozing from the nose and the tongue was protruded and there was injury over her left foot and there was black mark on the neck. The red coloured neck chain was cut into pieces and was lying there; her chappal was there; one more pair of plastic chappal of a male person was lying there. They immediately shifted the body from the land and kept by the side of the crop; they also found a Vale of the victim and the grass cut and collected was put on the Vale. Next day the complainant went to the Pol ice Station and f i led the complaint. On the basis of the said complaint a case has been registered in Crime No. 97/2014. Thereafter the Investigating Off icer commenced the investigation and fi led the charge sheet against accused No.1. At the time of f il ing the charge sheet the Investigating Off icer fi led charge sheet against rest of the accused before the Juvenile Justice Board as the remaining accused persons were the juveni les and they were legal ly chal lenged persons.

4. The learned Sessions Judge secured the presence of the accused after fol lowing the procedure as contemplated u/s 207 Cr.P.C. After supplying copies of the charge sheet and after hearing the learned counsel and the learned Publ ic Prosecutor with regard to charge, the charge was prepared, read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not gui lty and he claimed to be tried and as such the trial was fixed.

The prosecution in order to establ ish its case got examined 11 witnesses and got marked 26 documents and 22 material objects. Thereafter statement of the accused was recorded by putting the incriminating material as against him. He denied the same. The accused has not chosen to lead any evidence on