JUDGMENT :

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment passed by II Additional District and Sessions (Special) Judge, D.K. Mangaluru, in Special Case No.39/2017 dated 22.8.2019.

2. I have heard Sri.Dineshkumar K. Rao and Kumari. Pooja Kattimani, learned counsels appearing for the appellant and Sri.M.Diwakar Maddur, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

3. Though this case is listed for admission, with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.

4. The genesis of the case of the prosecution are that PW1 filed a complaint alleging that her parents go to work in the morning at 7.00 a.m. and came back in the evening and she was studying in 8th standard. Accused was residing in neighbourhood along with his wife. Accused on his acquaintance with the parents of the minor victim used to visit the house and used to talk in cordial manner with the victim. On 21.4.2016 at about 7’o clock when her parents had gone to the work, her sister had gone to the neighbours house to tie the flowers, at about 7.15 a.m. accused came to the house of the complainant, started talking with her and hugged her and gave her a kiss. Later he closed the front door of the house, again hugged her and kissed her. In spite of refusal by the complainant, he had caressed the chest and all over her body and asked her to remove her clothes. When she removed her clothes, the accused also removed his clothes and put his private part into the private part of the complainant. When the complainant resisted saying it was paining, he continued his act and thereby committed forcible sexual intercourse on her. Thereafter, he used to have intercourse with her once or twice in a week, when nobody was there in the house of the complainant. He had intimidated the complainant not to tell about the incident to her mother and sister. As the complainant missed her period for three months, her mother took her to the doctor at Primary Health Centre. There the doctor said that there were signs of pregnancy and an intimation was given to the Bajpe police station and later on asked the complainant and her mother to consult the doctor at Lady Goschen Hospital, Mangaluru and with consultation of the lady doctor, the victim filed the complaint. On the basis of the complaint a case was registered and thereafter after investigation charge sheet has been filed.

5. The learned special Court took the cognizance, secured the presence of the accused and after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, charge was framed, accused pleaded not guilty, he claims to be tried and as such trial was fixed.

6. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, it got examined 19 witnesses and got marked 25 documents and 6 Material Objects. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded by putting incriminating material as against him. Accused denied the same. Thereafter, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the trial Court held that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused and convicted the accused. Challenging the legality and correctness of the impugned order, the appellant-accused is before this Court.

7. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant are that the impugned order is contrary to evidence, material placed on record. It is his contention that the learned Judge has committed a serious error in convicting the appellant-accused that too when all the material witnesses have turned hostile and none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. It is his further submission that except the evidence of official witnesses, no other material is there to connect the accused to the alleged crime. He further submitted that the learned trial Judge only on relying upon the DNA report came to a wrong conclusion and has wrongly convicted the accused. It is his further submission th