JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the I-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur in Spl.SC No.71/2018 dated 15.12.2018 whereby the appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under Section 376(2)(1) of the IPC, 1860 and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and so also for offences under Section 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989. This appeal is filed seeking intervention of the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence awarded by the Trial Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel Shri Veeranna G. Tigadi for the appellant / accused, who appears before court physically and so also the learned HCGP for the State. Perused the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Trial Court in Spl.SC No.71/2018. This impugned judgment consists in all Page No.1 to Page No.25 inclusive of the views expressed by the Trial Court to convict the accused on appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution by subjecting to examination PW1 to PW25 and so also getting marked several documents as Exhibits P1 to P22. But Exhibit ‘D’ series have been got marked as the copies of the MLC register, which are two in number apart from getting marked MO-1 to MO-9. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant in this matter fairly submits that though the Trial Court has commanded over the evidence of PW-1 to PW-25 and so also commanded over several documents which have been got marked inclusive of material objects, but however, no fair opportunity has been given to the appellant who is a convicted person and also aged about 62 years, that too convicted for heinous offences under Section 376(2)(1) and even Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 inclusive of offences under the Special Enactment of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989. Though the accused who is aged about 62 years had faced trial for heinous offences which are stated supra and also the charges were framed against the accused, but the case in Spl.SC No.71/2018 has ended in conviction by order dated 15.12.2018. But counsel for the appellant has taken me through certain materials facilitated by the prosecution and also secured by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation in order to lay the charge-sheet. But counsel for the appellant has taken me through certain materials facilitated by the prosecution and also secured by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation in order to lay the charge-sheet. The accused is said to have committed the alleged offences as on 19.11.2018 and he was apprehended by the Investigating Agency on 20.11.2018. Subsequently charge-sheet was laid after completion of the entire investigation of the heinous offences. But the evidence was commenced on 05.12.2018 and on closure of the evidence on the part of the prosecution as on 12.12.2018, thereafter the judgment of conviction was rendered on 15.12.2018. Considering the period from the commission of offence till the date of rendering the judgment, even though it is taken that speedy justice has been rendered by awarding conviction in terms of sentence by the sentencing court, it is seen that the entire process has been completed by the Trial Judge within a span of 25 days. Further, even taking into consideration the date of commencement of recording evidence on the part of the prosecution, the same commenced on 05.12.2018 and the evidence of the prosecution was completely closed as on 12.12.2018 and thereafter the judgment has been rendered on 15.12.2018, within a period of ten (10) days. 4. Further, after the evidence was recorded on the part of the prosecution and also on closure of evidence in entirety and even recording the 313 statement as contemplated under the Cr.P.C. for incriminating evidence appearing against the accused, the entire process has been completed within a short period and judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been rendered within a period of 10 days, that too in respect of heinous offences under Section 376(2)(1) of the IPC, and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and so also for offences under Section 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 5. This contention is made by the learned counsel for the appellant for seeking intervention, who fairly submits that the matter may be remanded to the Trial Court where the accused is required to face fair trial and also it requires for him to take defence theory as regards the allegations made against the accused for offences under the IPC, 1860 and so also for offences under the POCSO Act and SC & ST Act. 6. 6. Whereas the learned HCGP for the State who appears before court physically, counter to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that timely justice and speedy justice and inexpensive justice are the primary motto of rendering justice. But in this matter, though the matter has been decided within a short period after apprehending the appellant / accused who is aged about 62 years, the Trial Court has followed the mandatory provisions of the Cr.P.C. and so also the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence of PW-1 to PW-25 inclusive of the Exhibits P1 to P22 as well as material objects MO-1 to MO-9 and thereby has rendered speedy justice. He contends that the Trial Court has thus disposed of the case by following the mandatory provisions. Therefore, it cannot arise for intervention of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the Trial Court, even though the said judgment has been challenged by the accused who is the appellant before this court, by way of the present appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant, however fairly submits that the matter may be remanded to the Trial Court by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, in view of the fact that fair trial has not been conducted. If not considered, certainly there shall be a miscarriage of justice. Fair trial has to be given to the accused who is a gravamen of the accusation made against him even though the charge-sheet has been laid by the I.O. against the accused for the alleged offences. On all these premise, learned counsel prays for allowing the appeal. 8. It is in this context of the contentions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and so also, learned HCGP for the State, it is relevant to refer to the facts of the prosecution case. The complainant namely Venkatesh who is examined as PW.1 has filed a complaint as per Ex.P1. PW.24 being the PSI is the investigating officer in part and based upon his complaint at Ex.P1, FIR has been recorded at Ex.P21. The complainant namely Venkatesh who is examined as PW.1 has filed a complaint as per Ex.P1. PW.24 being the PSI is the investigating officer in part and based upon his complaint at Ex.P1, FIR has been recorded at Ex.P21. Subsequently, the criminal law was set into motion by following the mandatory provision of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. for recording statement of witnesses and so also, secured material documents and then laid the charge sheet against the accused before the committal Court. Even the committal court is required to pass an order under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. by following mandatory provisions under Section 207 and 208 of Cr.P.C. But incident took place on 19.11.2018 at around 4.30 p.m. as alleged in the FIR said to have been recorded by the police having jurisdiction. The allegation made against the accused is that by inducing the victim girl who is aged about 8 years by providing chocolates, providing cycle and by saying so he took her to his house and by closing the door from inside, is alleged to have committed sexual assault on her. But accused belongs to Kuruba community and the complainant belongs to Koracha community which comes under scheduled caste category. But she is a minor and the accused by inducing her took her to his house and is alleged to have committed sexual assault on her. But the charge has been framed against the accused for the offence under Section 376(2)(1) of IPC and also offence under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The said charge framed against the accused it is the first charge. Consequently, charges under Section 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 were included. But the charges were framed against the accused and even the plea form of the accused under Section 240(2) of Cr.P.C., as maintained by the trial court. But the trial Judge has subscribed his signature with date as 04.12.2018. 9. Several witnesses have been subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution. Even PWs.14 to 17 being the Doctors and CW.18 – Dentist, CW.24 and 25 are the investigating officers, but CW.25 being the investigating officer laid the charge sheet against the accused. But PW.2 being the victim girl and PW.10 – Subbarayappa is the Headmaster. These are all the witnesses who have been subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution. But PW.2 being the victim girl and PW.10 – Subbarayappa is the Headmaster. These are all the witnesses who have been subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution. Ex.P1 is the complaint got marked through PW.1 – Venkatesha and Ex.P2 – spot panchanama whereby subscribed signatures of PWs.1, 6, 7 and 25. But PW.25 is the investigating officer who laid the charge sheet against the accused. Ex.P4 is the statement of PW.2 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P9 and P10 are the medical reports. Ex.P11 is the medical report of accused. Ex.P13 is the medical report. Ex.P22 is the map of scene of crime. Exs.D1 and D2 are the copies of MLC register. These are all the documents facilitated by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. PW.2 being the victim girl and her parents were also subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution. PW.5 – Manjula is the wife of complainant. PW.6 is the eye witness. PWs.7, 8, 9, 12 and 13 even though have been subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution have been examined and also taken contention that the accused alleged to have taken victim girl on 19.11.2018 at about 4.30 p.m. PW.18 being the Assistant Director of RFSL, Davanagere was subjected to examine certain material objects which were forwarded to the FSL authority relating to the presence of seminal stains on the objects. The prosecution has adduced all these evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and that too be the heinous offence under Section 376(2)(1) of IPC and the offence under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, inclusive of offence under the special enactment of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2012. 10. Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law.” But continuing mandamus is required to be issued in the present case also and it is a well-recognized practice and procedure for enforcing in terms of social justice as postulated by the preamble of the Constitution. But right to life and personal liberty is an integral part guaranteed under Part – III of Constitution of India. Though timely delivery of justice is a part of human rights, but denial of speedy justice is a threat to public confidence in the administration of justice. But right to life and personal liberty is an integral part guaranteed under Part – III of Constitution of India. Though timely delivery of justice is a part of human rights, but denial of speedy justice is a threat to public confidence in the administration of justice. But in the instant case within a short period of 10 days, the trial Court has rendered the judgment of conviction and order of sentence even for the heinous offence alleged to have committed on the victim girl. But the accused who is in judicial custody since from the date of his arrest and more so, he is aged about 62 years. But in the instant case the prosecution has let in evidence by subjecting to examination PWs.1 to 25 and got marked several documents at Exs.P1 to P22 inclusive of M.O.1 to 9. But the Doctrine of just and fair trial is the important concept of criminal justice delivery system. An opportunity ought to have been given to the accused to defend his case within the parameters of law and also under the relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure and equally under the Indian Evidence act, 1872. Though under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the domain is vested with the trial Court to arrive at a conclusion it is relating to oral and documentary evidence. Section 103 of the evidence Act, it is a proof, it means to say to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt does not mean to prove beyond reasonable either the facts or even for the charges leveled against the accused. But the Doctrine of criminal justice delivery system, the prosecution even facilitated the evidence, that evidence it should be proved beyond reasonable doubt and every evidence it shall be appreciating by following the mandatory provisions under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 even for the facts relating to the charges framed against the accused and even for fulcrum of facts in the mahazar which has drawn by the investigating officer during the course of investigation in the presence of panch witnesses secured. Though the domain as under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act vested with the trial Court for appreciation of evidence, but every time it should be just and fair, it means to say that fair opportunity shall be given to the accused to arrive at a conclusion. 11. Though the domain as under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act vested with the trial Court for appreciation of evidence, but every time it should be just and fair, it means to say that fair opportunity shall be given to the accused to arrive at a conclusion. 11. But in the instant case, the accused who is aged about 62 years was involved in commission of heinous offence over the victim girl aged of 8 years. But Section 118 of the Evidence act states “who may testify – All persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind. Though the deposition of a child witness may require corroboration, but that deposition it should inspire the confidence of the Court and there should be no embellishment or improvement therein. There is no doubt that Court may rely upon child witness only in case there is evidence on record to show that the child has been tutored. Even the evidence of child witness is not required to be rejected per se, but Court as a rule of prudence considers such evidence with close scrutiny and only on being convinced about the quality thereof and reliability can record conviction, based thereon. It is true that there is no immutable rule of appreciation of evidence that the testimony of independent witnesses should be ipso facto accepted but all the same the circumstance that the witnesses are independent goes miles and miles to ensure their truthfulness. But criminal courts decide cases and the question of acceptance of evidence of witnesses on sound common sense and when they find witnesses to be wholly independent they endeavour to fathom the reason as to why their evidence should not be accepted. But ordinarily it is a safe and sound rule of appreciation of evidence to accept the testimony of even the child witnesses. 12. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states “Number of witnesses. But ordinarily it is a safe and sound rule of appreciation of evidence to accept the testimony of even the child witnesses. 12. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states “Number of witnesses. – No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact.” The fact said to be proved that in the criminal justice delivery system that the prosecution has to be facilitate the evidence without clouds of doubt or otherwise to say rumour of doubt. But it is well-known principle of law that reliance it should be based on solitary statement of a witness if the Court comes to the conclusion that the said statement is the true and correct version of the case of the prosecution. But it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the evidence which is required to be judged by the Court to place credence on the statement. But in the matter of appreciation of evidence, it is to be termed as plurality of the witness, but it is not number of witness. The law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. But however, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the court may classify the oral testimony of a single witness, the court may classify the oral testimony into three categories, namely (i) wholly reliable (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The court as to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon testimony of a single witness. 13. But in the instant case, PW.2 being the victim minor girl who was subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution and whereby the accused is aged 62 years committed heinous offence of sexual assault on the victim girl. Several witnesses have been subjected to examination and also got marked several documents inclusive of material objects. 13. But in the instant case, PW.2 being the victim minor girl who was subjected to examination on the part of the prosecution and whereby the accused is aged 62 years committed heinous offence of sexual assault on the victim girl. Several witnesses have been subjected to examination and also got marked several documents inclusive of material objects. But even for the heinous offence against the accused, the trial Court has disposed of the case within a short period and even if the total period is taken into consideration from recording FIR till rendering the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, it is almost all within 25 days. But the commencement of recording of evidence and even completion of process for recording evidence and recording of evidence under Section 313 of CR.P.C, but rendering the conviction judgment it is almost within a period of 10 days. 14. However, in this matter learned counsel for the appellant who is present before the court physically is fairly submitting that the matter may be remanded to the trial court as where the accused is required to face the trial and fair and sufficient opportunity shall be given as per the doctrine of criminal justice delivery system and that opportunity shall be made available to the accused to take proper defence by referring the statement of witnesses and also referring the materials which collected by the investigating officer during the course of investigation and even to draw the mahazar in the presence of panch witness for having seized MOs.1 to 9 which have been subjected to examination by the RFSL, Davanagere. 15. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and equally learned HCGP for State even though he has made counter to the arguments of learned counsel for appellant, but fairly concedes that the matter may be remanded to the trial court for disposal in accordance with law by giving fair opportunity to the accused. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal preferred by the appellant / accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in Spl.SC No.71/2018 dated 15.12.2018 is hereby set-aside. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal preferred by the appellant / accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in Spl.SC No.71/2018 dated 15.12.2018 is hereby set-aside. Consequent upon setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the matter is remanded to the Court of Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, with a direction that the matter shall be disposed of within a period of six months as there shall be some denovo procedure to be followed and to follow the procedure as contemplated under the relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure f or disposal of the case in accordance with law. Whatever observation made in this order even by referring the provisions under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 inclusive of special enactment of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and also POCSO Act, 2012 shall not influence the mind of the Trial Court, which shall proceed to dispose of the case on merits, in accordance with law. If any bail application filed by the appellant/accused before the trial Court is pending, the same shall be disposed of on merits in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, by providing an opportunity to both prosecution as well as the defence counsel. Registry of this Court is directed to forward a copy of this judgment along with trial Court records to the trial Court for information and to proceed further, in accordance with law.