Sri.S.S.Mamadapur, learned counsel for petitioner

and Sri. Gururaj V. Hasilkar., learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondent No.1 have appeared in

person.

On the basis of the complaint lodged by one

Ashok S/o Layappa Halakawadi - the second respondent on

14.07.2016, the Horti Police Station registered a case in

Crime No. 147/2016 for the offence punishable under

Section 363 of IPC against unknown persons and issued

FIR.

The respondent-1 - Police Station having taken up

investigation arrested the petitioner on 24.07.2016 and

3

was subsequently released on bail. The investigation is

completed and the charge sheet is filed against the

petitioner/accused No.1 and 5 others for the offences

punishable under Sections 363, 376(2)(N), 341, 344,

506(2) R/w Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 (i) (xi),

2 (v) of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 and Section 5 R/w Section

6, Section 11 R/w Section 12 and Section 16 R/w Section

17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,

2012 (for short 'POCSO Act') before the Trial Court. It is

numbered as Special Case [POCSO] No.34/2016.

The presence of the accused was secured and the

Court framed charges to which the petitioner and others

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution

in support of its case has examined as many as 31

witnesses and got marked several documents.

The statement of the accused was recorded as

contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and the matter

was posted for defense evidence.

4

The petitioner examined himself as DW-1 and got

marked 9 documents as per Exs.D-1 to D-9. It is said that

the documents are written by the victim to the petitioner.

He filed an application under Section 233 read with Section

243 of Cr.P.C to refer the hand written statement of victim

and the documents (Exs.D1 to D9) to a hand writing

expert for verification and opinion. The prosecutor opposed

the

application.

The

Trial

Court

vide

order

dated

14.02.2022 rejected the application. Hence, this petition is

filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

3.

Sri.S.S.Mamadapur,

learned

counsel

for

petitioner submits that the order is illegal and contrary to

the material on record.

Next, he submitted that the petitioner is charged

with committing serious offence and that he should be

given full opportunity to substantiate his defense by

producing such document as may be required for the

proper adjudication of the matter.

5

A further submission is made that by rejection of the

application the Court has curtailed the right of the

petitioner to effectively defend the case of the prosecution.

Learned counsel vehemently contended that the

Court has failed to appreciate that the victim has disputed

the hand writings appearing in Exs.D-1 to D-9. Under

these circumstances, it was incumbent upon the Court to

refer the documents to hand writing expert for being

compared with her hand written statement.

It is also submitted that Court has failed to

appreciate that no prejudice or hardship could have

occasioned in the event of allowing the application.

Lastly, he submitted that viewed from any angle, the

order is unsustainable in law and accordingly, the same is

liable to be quashed.

4.

Learned

High

Court

Government

Pleader

justified the order.

6

He submitted that the Court in extenso referred to

the contentions and material on record and rejected the

application. Hence, he submitted that the petition may be

dismissed.

5.

Heard the contentions urged on behalf of

parties and perused the papers with care.

6.

The short point which requires consideration is,

whether

the

Trial

Court

justified

in

rejecting

the

application?

On the basis of complaint lodged by one Ashok - the

second respondent, the first respondent - Police registered

a case in Crime No.147/2016 for the offence punishable

under Section 363 of IPC against unknown persons and

issued FIR.

After completion of the investigation, charge sheet

was filed against the petitioner - accused No.1 and five

others for the offence punishable unde