The right to a fair trial includes the opportunity for the accused to cross-examine witnesses, and the trial court's failure to adhere to this principle necessitates remanding the case for proper proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

G. BASAVARAJA, J.

1. The appellant/accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and conviction and order on sentence passed by the FTSC-I Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Spl.C.No. 1659/2022 dated 05.02.2024.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Police Inspector of Nandini Layout Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 4(2), 5(m), 6, and 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. It is alleged by the prosecution that the victim, aged 6 years, is the daughter of CWs 1 and 5, and they were residing in Rajagopalanagar. CW5, the father of the victim, was running Sree Sai Fab Welding Shop in his building, where the appellant/accused was working under him and used to speak to CW5’s children. On 09.05.2022, at about 1.30 p.m., the accused took CW2, the victim girl, to the shop of CW6, where he purchased some snacks for her, and from there he took her to House No. 12, situated in 1st Cross, 1st Main, Lakshmidevi Nagar, Cauvery Nagar, Nandini Layout. There, he made the victim lie down, undressed her, slept on her, and penetrated his index finger into the private part of the victim, thereby committing the offences punishable under Sections 4(2), 5(m), 6, and 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

4. The accused has been in judicial custody, since the date of arrest. After hearing on the charges, charges were framed against the accused for the commission of offences under Sections 4 and 8 of the POCSO Act on 17.11.2022, and the same were read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, additional charges were framed against the accused on 15.09.2023 for the commission of offences under Sections 5(m) and 6 of the POCSO Act. The same were read over and explained to the accused, who, having understood them, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution, in order to establish the guilt of the accused, examined eighteen witnesses as PWs.1 to 18, marked twenty-nine documents as Exhibits P1 to P29, and produced seven material objects as MOs.1 to 7.

6. Upon the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The accused denied all incriminating evidence brought against him and did not choose to adduce any defence evidence.

7. After hearing both sides, the trial court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 4(2), 5(m), 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The court sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000 for the offence under Section 4(2) of the Act; further rigorous imprisonment for twenty years and fine of Rs.1,00,000 for the offence under Section 6; and rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.50,000 for the offence under Section 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and the order on sentence, the accused/appellant has filed the present appeal.

8. The learned Counsel, Sri Abhishek Huddar, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Court are contrary to law and the material on record. He contended that the learned Sessions Judge failed to properly examine the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the examination-in-chief. He further submitted that the trial court did not appreciate the evidence on record in accordance with