YAMANAPPA S/O SATYAPPA MANG Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant called in question the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.C. No.27/2012 dated 09.12.2015 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, sitting at Jamkhandi. The appellant is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 302 of IPC imposing rigorous imprisonment for life (till his death) and also fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and also awarded rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and imposed fine of Rs.10,000/-, with default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) Without adverting to the merits of the case, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all examined 27 witnesses and got marked Exs.P-1 to 43 and M.Os.1 to 15. However, there was no sufficient opportunity granted to the accused by the Trial Court to cross-examine the material witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 24. However, P.Ws.25 to 27 who are not material witnesses, who are the Police personnel and the Investigating Officers were only cross-examined in the case. The evidence recorded by the Trial Court so far it relates to material witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 24, strongly relied upon by the Trial Court for the purpose of convicting and sentencing the accused. However, Trial Court has granted permission to cross-examine P.Ws.1 to 24 on imposing cost of Rs.8,000/-. As accused has been in judicial custody, he was unable to pay the cost. Therefore, he made an application before the Trail Court itself to wave the cost or even it is submitted that the discretionary power has to be exercised and without forcing the accused to pay cost, the accused has to be permitted to crossexamine those witnesses. However, the Trial Court was reluctant to grant such relief to the accused and proceeded to render the judgment impugned under this appeal.

(3.) On perusal of the above said circumstances, the Trial Court has discussed about the opportunity granted to the accused to cross-examine P.Ws.1 to 24. At paragraph 46, the Court has observed that inspite of imposing cost and allowing the application filed by the accused, seeking recalling of the prosecution witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 24, the accused has not utilized the said opportunity and deliberately attempted to drag on the proceedings. Therefore, Court was reluctant to grant further time. Hence, by giving such finding, the Court proceeded to dispose of the case on merits, convicting and sentencing the accused as noted supra.