Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Kar) 404

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.SOMASHEKAR, J.
Sri. Gangadharappa S/o Avulappa - Appellant
Vs.
State of Karnataka Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police Chikkaballapur Sub-Division Chikkaballapur Manchenahalli Police Station Manchenahalli, Gowribidnur Taluk District - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2286 OF 2018
Decided on : 29-10-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri. Veeranna G. Tigadi
For the Respondent: Sri. Rahul Rai

Point of law : Appeal against conviction – No fair opportunity given to accused – Matter remanded to trial Court

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376(2)(1) - SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v-a) - POCSO Act, 2012 - Sections 4 and 6 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 374(2) - Evidence Act, 1872 – Sexual assault on child – Conviction – Rape - 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 Section 376(2)(1) and even Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 inclusive of offences under the Special Enactment of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 – Matter remanded to trial Court
Finding of the court : But it is well-known principle of law that reliance it should be based on solitary statement of a witness if Court comes to conclusion that said statement is true and correct version of case of prosecution- But it is quality of evidence and not quantity of evidence which is required to be judged by Court to place credence on statement - But in matter of appreciation of evidence it is to be termed as plurality of witness but it is not number of witness- law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact - But however faced with testimony of a single witness court may classify oral testimony of a single witness court may classify oral testimony into three categories namely (i) wholly reliable (ii) wholly unreliable and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable - In first two categories there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding testimony of single witness - Difficulty arises in third category of cases - Court as to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony direct or circumstantial before acting upon testimony of a single witness –
Result : Appeal Allowed.

JUDGMENT :

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 dated 15.12.2018 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under Section 376(2)(1) of the IPC, 1860 and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and so also for offences under Section 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 Section 376(2)(1) and even Sections 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 dated 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 05.12.2018 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. Considering the period from the commission of offence till the date of rendering the judgment, even though it is taken that speedy justice has been rendered by awarding conviction in terms of sentence by the sentencing court, it is seen that the entire process has been completed by the Trial Judge within a span of 25 days. Further, even taking into consideration the date of commencement of recording evidence on the part of the prosecution, the same commenced on 05.12.2018 and the evidence of the prosecution was completely closed as on 12.12.2018 and thereafter the judgment has been rendered on 15.12.2018, within a period of ten (10) days.

4. Further, after the evidence was recorded on the part of the prosecution and also on closure of evidence in entirety and even recording the 313 statement as contemplated under the Cr.P.C. for incriminating evidence appearing against the accused, the entire process has been completed within a short period and judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been rendered within a period of 10 days, that too in respect of heinous offences under Section 376(2)(1) of the IPC, and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and so also for offences under Section 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC & ST (POA) Act,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document