JUDGMENT :

B.A. PATIL, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Hassan in Special Case No.146/2014 dated 23/24.10.2019.

2. I have heard Sri Pradeep K.C, the learned counsel for the appellant-accused and Sri Renukaradhya, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that eight months prior to 15.11.2014 at about 2.00 p.m. when the victim alone was there in her residence, the accused came knowing well that the victim is minor by enticing her sexually assaulted her and subsequently, he has threatened her with dire consequences if she discloses the said incident to anybody. It is further alleged that in the month of March 2014 again accused approached and had sexually assaulted the victim and as a result of the same, the victim conceived and when she has been taken to the hospital, the same has been confirmed and on 15.11.2014 the victim delivered a female child. On the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered. After the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed. The Special Court took the cognizance after serving the copies of the charge sheet and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, the charge was read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty. He claimed to be tried and as such, the trail was fixed.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has got examined eight witnesses and got marked 17 documents. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating material as against him. The accused denied the same and he has not chosen to lead any evidence on his behalf. Subsequently, an application came to be filed under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. for amendment of charge and after hearing both side, the charge was altered and the prosecution has not led further evidence and relied on the evidence which has been already lead and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 376 of IPC and also under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (herein after referred to as 'Act' for short). Challenging the legality and correctness of the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant-accused is before this Court.

5. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant-accused are that though all the material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, the trial Court only by relying upon the DNA test report marked as Ex.P14 and on the basis of the evidence of the Investigating Officer has erroneously convicted the accused. It is his further submission that the author of the DNA test report has not been examined though the said aspect has been clearly denied during the course of trial by the accused.

6. It is his further submission that the trial Court before relying upon the DNA test report, it has to put the incriminating material as against the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. while questioning the accused. Without questioning the accused the Court cannot rely upon the said aspect and pass the order of conviction on such document. In order to substantiate his argument he has relied upon the decision in the case of Ajay Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 12 SCC 341. It is his further submission that while collecting the blood sample of the female child and the appellant-accused the procedure as contemplated has not been followed. The Investigating Officer neither obtained any orders from the Court nor the blood sample has been collected in the presence of Court before any independent witnesses. In the absence of such material the test report produced by the prosecution is not rel