- 1 - CRL.A No.100036/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100036 OF 2023 (C) BETWEEN: SRI. GOPAL S/O. BHIMAPPA METI AGE-36 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAJAPUR, TALUK. MUDALAGI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591312. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ASHOK R. KALYANASHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH GHATAPRABHA POLICE STATION, NOW REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT KARNATAKA DHARWAD, BENCH AT DHARWAD-580011. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADDL. SPP.) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN SESSIONS CASE NO.8003/2020 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 30.03.2022 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 31.03.2022 PASSED BY THE XII ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI SITTING AT GOKAK IN SESSIONS CASE NO.8003/2020 FOR THE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 447, 504 AND 302 OF IPC AND SECTION 30 OF INDIAN ARMS ACT AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 17.04.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - CRL.A No.100036/2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) The appellant/accused has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 504, 447 of Indian Penal Code and Section 30 of Indian Arms Act, 1959 and Order on Sentence dated 30th March, 2022 passed in SC No.8003 of 2020 dated 30th March 2022 by the XII Additional Principal District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Gokak (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the “trial Court”). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per the rank before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the circle inspector of Police, Mudalagi Circle, has submitted charge-sheet against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 447, 504 and 302 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1)(A) & 30 of Indian Arms Act, 1959. It is alleged that accused and deceased or distant cousins. In respect of land bearing survey number 24/2B/1, there is dispute between them regarding the extent to which they are entitled to. On 30th April 2020, the - 3 - CRL.A No.100036/2023 deceased was ploughing the land in which he was in possession. At that time, accused objected to it stating that his share of land lies in that place to which deceased replied to get the same surveyed and take his land. On 01st May 2020 in the afternoon at about 2:30 PM, the accused suspending a double barrel gun to his shoulder, along with oxen proceeded towards the disputed land through the way in front of the house of deceased in the farm and started ploughing it with MO6-rante. At that time, the deceased and his family members who were engaged in flooring of the cattle-shed in front of their house, saw the accused ploughing the land which was in their possession. The deceased and his son proceeded to enquire with the accused. When they questioned about the same, accused again asserted that his share lies there and again the deceased informed him that he may get the land surveyed and take his share, if there is any. At that time, the accused fired the double barrel gun at the deceased and the deceased collapsed. PW1, PW3, the wife and other family members rushed to the spot which was at a distance of 120 feet from their house. At that time, accused took to his heels. The deceased was taken to the hospital by 4.00 PM where he was declared brought dead. In the Civil Hospital at Gokak, PW15- - 4 - CRL.A No.100036/2023 Sub-Inspector of Police having received the information, came to the hospital by 6.00 PM and then PW1 gave the complaint as per Exhibit P1. 4. After investigation, Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against the accused for the alleged commission of offence. After filing charge-sheet, cognizance was taken against the accused and case was registered in CC No.1197 of 2020. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where case came to be registered in SC No.8003 of 2020. The accused was produced before the Court from judicial custody. On hearing charges, the learned Sessions Judge has framed charges for commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 & 504 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27(1) & 30 of Indian Arms Act, 1959. The same was read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him. Having understood the same accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To prove the guilt of the accused prosecution, in all, has examined sixteen witnesses as PWs1 to 16; 78 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P78; and thirteen material objects were marked as MOs1 to 13. Upon closure of - 5 - CRL.A No.100036/2023 prosecution side evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded through video conferencing. Accused has not chosen to place any defence evidence on his behalf. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the trial Court has passed the impugned Judgment of conviction and order on sentence. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the accused has preferred the present appeal. 6. Sri Ashok R. Kalyanshetty, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would submit as to the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal. In addition, the learned Counsel would submit that the accused is in judicial custody from the date of his arrest. The charges framed were read over to the accused only through video conferencing and the accused has not put his signature on the Plea Form. The charges were framed by the trial Court during COVID-19 pandemic period. The evidence of prosecution witnesses were not recorded in the physical presence of the accused as required under Section 273 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the evidence was recorded in the absence of physical presence of the accused, Counsel for the accused was not able to take proper instructions from the accused to cross-examine - 6 - CRL.A No.100036/2023 the material prosecution witnesses effectively. Even the statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure is recorded through video conferencing. Accused has not been provided with an opportunity to submit his statement. Even the accused has not put his signature on the statement recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial Court has endorsed on the statement as “Accused is produced through VC, hence on his physical production, his signature shall be taken to this examination.” However, the trial Court has not taken the signature of the accused. Therefore, the trial Court has not complied with the mandatory procedure while recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Counsel would submit that the recording of statement of accused under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure is not an empty formality. The trial Court has failed to comply with the procedure as required under under Section 281 of Code of Criminal Procedure. He further submit that the trial Court has also not provided an opportunity to the accused to explain the circumstances. Therefore, he sought to set aside the Judgment of conviction and order on sentence and to remand the matter to the trial Court for de-nova trial. - 7 - CRL.A No.100036/2023 7. As against this, Sri M B Gundwade, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would submit that the trial Court has recorded the evidence of prosecution witnesses through video conferencing. The learned Counsel for the accused was present at the time of recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused Counsel has cross-examined all the prosecution witnesses. Non-compliance of provisions of Section 281 of Code of Criminal Procedure has not injured the case in its defence on merits and if there is any irregularity in the trial, the same would not vitiate the proceedings. The trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Absolutely, there are no materials to remand the matter to the Court below. Hence, he sought for dismissal of appeal. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and on perusal of materials placed before us, the following points would arise for our consideration: 1. Whether the impugned Judgment of acquittal suffer from legal infirmities requiring this Court to intercede? - 8 - CRL.A No.100036/2023 2. Whether the appellant has made out a ground to remand the matter to the court below for proper recording of statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure? 3. What order? 9. Our answer to the above points would be: Point No.1: In the affirmative Point No.2: In the affirmative Point No.3: As per final order Regarding Points 1 & 2: 10. We have examined the materials placed before this Court. The trial Court has framed charges against the accused on 21st January 2021. On that day accused was produced from custody through video conferencing. Charges framed were explained to the accused in the language known to him. Accused has pleaded not guilty and the same is recorded in writing by the trial Court. But the trial Court has not taken the signature of the accused as the same was recorded through video conferencing. Since the accused has pleaded not guilty, no prejudice would be caused to the accused for not taking signature on the Plea Form as the learned Sessions Judge has - 9 - CRL.A No.100036/2023 certified that the charges were read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language the record contains true and complete account of plea made by the accused. Therefore, in this regard, the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted. 11. With regard to recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses is concerned, the trial Court has recorded the statement of witnesses as PWs1 to PW16 from 27th September 2021 to 21st February, 2022. Since COVID-19 pandemic was prevailing during that period, the trial Court has recorded the statement of all the prosecution witnesses through video conferencing. Accused also represented through his Counsel and all the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined by Counsel appearing for the accused. The recording of evidence by the Court in the presence of the accused, who had appeared through video conferencing, is permissible under the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts framed by this Court vide Notification HCC No.18/2020 dated 09.06.2020 during COVID- 19 pandemic period. Admittedly, the learned Counsel for the accused was also present before the Court at the time of recording evidence. Neither the accused nor the Counsel for the accused raised any objection to record the statement of - 10 - CRL.A No.100036/2023 witnesses only in the physical presence of the accused. For the first time before this Court, the learned Counsel for the appellant/accused has raised this point, contending that the trial Court has not recorded the statement of witnesses as required under Section, 273 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which cannot be accepted. 12. For want of proper instructions from the accused while cross-examining the prosecution witnesses is concerned, if the accused wants to further cross-examine any witnesses, on behalf of him, proper application can be filed before the trial Court for further cross-examination of the witnesses. If such an application is filed, the trial Court can consider the same in accordance with law. 13. As regards recording of statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, the learned Counsel has rightly submitted that the trial Court has not followed the mandatory provisions of Section 281 of Code of Criminal Procedure and has not taken the signature of the accused on the 313 Statement. The trial Court has endorsed on the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, but has not taken - 11 - CRL.A No.100036/2023 signature of the accused on the said statement. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention as to the Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the case of SAMSUL HAQUE v. THE STATE OF ASSAM reported in 2020(3) SCC (Cri.) 596, it is observed as under: “21. The most vital aspect, in our view, and what drives the nail in the coffin in the case of the prosecution is the manner in which the court put the case to accused No.9, and the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. To say the least it is perfunctory. 22. It is trite to say that, in view of the judgments referred to by the learned Senior Counsel, aforesaid, the incriminating material is to be put to the accused so that the accused gets a fair chance to defend himself. This is in recognition of the principles of audi alteram partem. Apart from the judgments referred to aforesaid by the learned Senior Counsel, we may usefully refer to the judgment of this Court in Asraf Ali v. State of Assam. The relevant observations are in the following paragraphs: “21. Section 313 of the Code casts a duty on the Court to put in an enquiry or trial questions to the accused for the purpose of enabling him to explain any of the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. It follows as necessary corollary therefrom that each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused is required to be put to him specifically, distinctly and separately and failure to do so amounts to a serious irregularity vitiating trial, if it is shown that the accused was prejudiced. - 12 - CRL.A No.100036/2023 22. The object of Section 313 of the Code is to establish a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused. If a point in the evidence is important against the accused, and the conviction is intended to be based upon it, it is right and proper that the accused should be questioned about the matter and be given an opportunity of explaining it. Where no specific question has been put by the trial Court on an inculpatory material in the prosecution evidence, it would vitiate the trial. Of course, all these are subject to rider whether they have caused miscarriage of justice or prejudice. This Court also expressed similar view in S. Harnam Singh v. The State (AIR 1976 SC 2140), while dealing with Secton 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (corresponding to Section 313 of the Code). Non- indication of inculpatory material in its relevant facets by the trial Court to the accused adds to vulnerability of the prosecution case. Recording of a statement of the accused under Section 313 is not a purposeless exercise.” 23. While making the aforesaid observations, this Court also referred to its earlier judgment of the three Judge Bench in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Mharashtra, which considered the fall out of the omission to put to the accused a question on a vital circumstance appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, and the requirement that the accused’s attention should be drawn to every inculpatory material so as to enable him to explain it. Ordinarily, in such a situation, such material as not put to the accused must be eschewed. No doubt, it is recognised, that where there is a perfunctory examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the matter is capable of being remitted to the trial court, with the direction to retry from the stage at which the prosecution was closed” 14. To fortify the same, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ni the case of KALICHARAN AND OTHERS v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH passed in Criminal Appeal No.122 of 2021 decided on 14th December, 2022, has mentioned the importence of Section - 13 - CRL.A No.100036/2023 313 statement in the Criminal case trial. At paragraph 22 of the said judgment, it is observed thus: “22. Such a case was not at all made out by the prosecution in the evidence before the Court. The material brought on record by the prosecution witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) is to the effect that Harpal Singh died due to injuries sustained as a result of an attack made by accused Nos.1,3 and 4 on him by sharp weapons. These material circumstances brought on record against the accused on which their conviction is based were never put to the accused. What was put to the accused was not the case made out by the prosecution in the evidence. No questions are asked in the Section 313 statement about the post- mortem of the body of Harpal Singh. It is not put to the witness that the cause of death of Harpal Singh was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of injuries caused by sharp weapons. Questioning an accused under Section 313 CrPC is not an empty formality. The requirement of Section 313 CrPC is that the accused must be explained the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him so that accused can offer an explanation. After an accused is questioned under Section 313 CrPC, he is entitled to take a call on the question of examining defence witnesses and leading other evidence. If the accused is not explained the important circumstances appearing against him in the evidence on which his conviction is sought to be based, the accused will not be in a position to explain the said circumstances brought on record against him. He will not be able to properly defend himself. In paragraph 21 of the decision of this Court in the case of Jai Dev v. State of Punjab, it was held thus:- - 14 - CRL.A No.100036/2023 “21. In support of his contention that the failure to put the relevant point against the appellant Hari Singh would affect the final conclusion of the High Court, Mr Anthony has relied on a decision of this Court in Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat [1951 SCC 1060 : AIR 1953 SC 468]. In that case, this Court has no doubt referred to the fact that it was important to put to the accused each material fact which is intended to be used against him and to afford him a chance of explaining it if he can. But these observations must be read in the light of the other conclusions reached by this Court in that case. It would, we think, be incorrect to suggest that these observations are intended to lay down a general and inexorable rule that wherever it is found that one of the points used against the accused person has not been put to him, either the trial is vitiated or his conviction is rendered bad. The examination of the accused person under Section 342 is undoubtedly intended to give him an opportunity to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. In exercising its powers under Section 342, the court must take care to put all relevant circumstances appearing in the evidence to the accused person. It would not be enough to put a few general and broad questions to the accused, for by adopting such a course the accused may not get opportunity of explaining all the relevant circumstances. On the other hand, it would not be fair or right that the court should put to the accused person detailed questions which may amount to his cross-examination. The ultimate test in determining whether or not the - 15 - CRL.A No.100036/2023 accused has been fairly examined under Section 342 would be to enquire whether, having regard to all the questions put to him, he did get an opportunity to say what he wanted to say in respect of prosecution case against him. If it appears that the examination of the accused person was defective and thereby a prejudice has been caused to him, that would no doubt be a serious infirmity. It is obvious that no general rule can be laid down in regard to the manner in which the accused person should be examined under Section 342. Broadly stated, however, the true position appears to be that passion for brevity which may be content with asking a few omnibus general questions is as much inconsistent with the requirements of Section 342 as anxiety for thoroughness which may dictate an unduly detailed and large number of questions which may amount to the cross-examination of the accused person. Besides, in the present case, as we have already shown, failure to put the specific point of distance is really not very material.” In paragraph 145 of the well known decision of this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, it was held thus: “145. It is not necessary for us to multiply authorities on this point as this question now stands concluded by several decisions of this Court. In this view of the matter, the circumstances which were not put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have to be completely excluded from consideration.” - 16 - CRL.A No.100036/2023 15. In another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of INDRAKUNWAR v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH reported in 2023 SCC ONLINE SC 1364, at paragraph 34 and 35 it is observed as under: ”34. Keeping in view the understanding of the principles of privacy and the propositions of law in regard thereto, we now travel to what, by law, may be required of the convict- appellant in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 35. A perusal of various judgments15 rendered by this Court reveals the following principles, as evolved over time when considering such statements. 35.1 The object, evident from the Section itself, is to enable the accused to themselves explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. 35.2 The intent is to establish a dialogue between the Court and the accused. This process benefits the accused and aids the Court in arriving at the final verdict. 35.3 The process enshrined is not a matter of procedural formality but is based on the cardinal principle of natural justice, i.e., audi alterum partem. 35.4 The ultimate test when concerned with the compliance of the Section is to enquire and ensure whether the accused got the opportunity to say his piece. 35.5 In such a statement, the accused may or may not admit involvement or any incriminating circumstance or - 17 - CRL.A No.100036/2023 may even offer an alternative version of events or interpretation. The accused may not be put to prejudice by any omission or inadequate questioning. 35.6 The right to remain silent or any answer to a question which may be false shall not be used to his detriment, being the sole reason. 35.7 This statement cannot form the sole basis of conviction and is neither a substantive nor a substitute piece of evidence. It does not discharge but reduces the prosecution's burden of leading evidence to prove its case. They are to be used to examine the veracity of the prosecution's case. 35.8 This statement is to be read as a whole. One part cannot be read in isolation. 35.9 Such a statement, as not on oath, does not qualify as a piece of evidence under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; however, the inculpatory aspect as may be borne from the statement may be used to lend credence to the case of the prosecution. 35.10 The circumstances not put to the accused while rendering his statement under the Section are to be excluded from consideration as no opportunity has been afforded to him to explain them. 35.11 The Court is obligated to put, in the form of questions, all incriminating circumstances to the accused so as to give him an opportunity to articulate his defence. The defence so articulated must be carefully scrutinized and considered. - 18 - CRL.A No.100036/2023 35.12 Non-compliance with the Section may cause prejudice to the accused and may impede the process of arriving at a fair decision.” 16. In the case on hand, a perusal of the order sheet dated 5th March 2022, reveals that on that day accused was produced from judicial custody through video conferencing and the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The same reveals that accused appeared through video conferencing and the Court questioned the accused and recorded the statement. The learned Sessions Judge has certified in page 17 of the statement as under: “(DgÉÆæ «¹ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ºÁdgÁVzÀÄë ªÉÄð£À ¥Àæ±ÉßUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DgÉÆævÀ¤UÉ N¢ ºÉý DvÀ ºÉýzÀAvÉ DvÀ£À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß §gÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî¯ÁVzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EAVèµÀ£À°èzÀÝ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀ£ÀßqÀPÉÌ C£ÀĪÁ¢¹ DgÉÆævÀ¤UÉ ºÉüÀ¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ zÀÈrüÃPÀj¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉ.)” 17. Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that although the learned Sessions Judge purportedly questioned the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the vernacular language, the certificate appended by the learned Sessions Judge merely states that the questions were translated from English to Kannada. This mechanical certification, without any substantiation or demonstration of - 19 - CRL.A No.100036/2023 actual comprehension by the accused, gives rise to a serious concern regarding the manner in which compliance with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been recorded. The certification appears to be a routine and perfunctory exercise, bereft of any application of judicial mind or assurance that the accused was effectively and meaningfully examined on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. 18. Moreover, the handwritten endorsement by the learned Sessions Judge on the relevant page of the record states that, “Accused is produced through VC. Hence, on his physical production, his signature shall be taken to this examination.” This endorsement unequivocally indicates that the examination of the accused was conducted via video conferencing and that the learned Judge was aware of the requirement to obtain the signature of the accused on his physical production. However, the record is silent with regard to any subsequent compliance with this directive. The concerned court staff or officials have failed to obtain the signature of the accused, which is a mandatory procedural requirement under Section 281 of the Code of Criminal - 20 - CRL.A No.100036/2023 Procedure when statements are recorded by the court. Such omission amounts to a clear procedural lapse. 19. In light of these deficiencies, we find considerable merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused was not afforded a real and effective opportunity to offer his explanation or provide an alternative account of the circumstances put to him. The failure to adhere to the mandatory provisions of Sections 313 and 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has, in our considered view, caused prejudice to the accused, thereby vitiating the fairness of the trial process and impeding the delivery of a just decision. 20. It is well-settled law, as reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, that the examination of an accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not a mere procedural formality but a substantive and significant right conferred on the accused. This provision serves as an opportunity for the accused to personally explain any circumstance appearing in the evidence against him and enables the court to assess his defence, if any. The object of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to establish a dialogue between the court and the accused, thereby ensuring - 21 - CRL.A No.100036/2023 that the accused is fully aware of the incriminating evidence and has a fair opportunity to rebut it. 21. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that a perfunctory or mechanical examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure undermines the fairness of the trial. In cases where there is an apparent violation or non- compliance with this provision, it is within the jurisdiction of the appellate court to remit the matter to the trial court for fresh examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, from the stage where the lapse occurred. 22. In the present case, for the reasons discussed above particularly the failure to ensure the physical presence of the accused, the lack of proper explanation in a language fully understood by him, and the omission to obtain his signature as mandated under Section 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure we are constrained to hold that the examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was fundamentally flawed. As such, to uphold the principles of natural justice and fair trial, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the learned Sessions Court with a direction to conduct a fresh and proper examination of the accused under Section 313 of the - 22 - CRL.A No.100036/2023 Code of Criminal Procedure in his physical presence, strictly in accordance with law. Accordingly, Points 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative. Regarding Point No.3: 23. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, we proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i) Appeal is allowed; ii) Judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 30th March 2022, passed in SC No.8003 of 2020 by the XII Additional District & Session Judge, Belagavi sitting at Gokak, is set aside; iii) Case is remanded to the trial Court with a direction to reconsider the same from the stage of recording Statement of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and proceed with the case in accordance with law; iv) It is made clear that if the accused wants to further cross-examine any of the witnesses, Counsel for the Accused is at liberty to file necessary application before the trial Court for recalling prosecution witnesses for further cross- examination and if such an application is filed trial - 23 - CRL.A No.100036/2023 Court shall consider the same in accordance with law; v) Registry to transmit the trial Court records along with the copy of this Judgment to the concerned Court forthwith; vi) Learned Sessions Judge is directed to dispose of the case at the earliest as the accused is in judicial custody; vii) Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn CT-CMU