The convictions and sentences, dated 26.11.2014, passed in Sessions Case No.4 of 2014, by the Mahalir Needhimandram, Chennai, are being challenged in the present criminal appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl by name, Kokila, is a daughter of the defacto complainant, viz., Natarajan. The victim is a slight mentally retarded person. The defacto complainant, at the time of occurrence, has lived in a hut in Guindy along with his family members. On 20.05.2013, at about 4.00 p.m., the accused has entered into the hut of the defacto complainant and gagged the mouth of the victim by using his one hand and placed his other hand on the chest of the victim. After occurrence, the defacto complainant has given a complaint and the same has been registered in Crime No.606 of 2013.

3. On receipt of the complaint, the investigating officer, viz., P.W.9, has taken up investigation, examined connected witnesses and after completing investigation, laid a final report on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and the same has been taken on file in P.R.C.No.118 of 2013.

4. The IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, after considering the facts that the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused are triable by Sessions Court, has committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Chennai Division and the same has been taken on file in Sessions Case No.4 of 2014 and subsequently made over to the trial Court.

5. The trial Court, after hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusing the relevant documents, has framed a charge against the accused under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 7 r/w. Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and the same has been read over and explained to him. The accused has denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

6. On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 9 have been examined and Exhibits P.1 to P.7 have been marked.

7. When the accused has been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as respects the incriminating materials available in evidence against him, he denied his complicity in the crime. No oral and documentary evidence have been let in on the side of the accused.

8. The trial court, after hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusing the relevant evidence available on record, has found the accused guilty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.2000/- with usual default clause. The accused has also been found guilty under Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and sentenced to under go five years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.5000/- with usual default clause. Against the convictions and sentences passed by the trial Court, the present criminal appeal has been preferred, at the instance of the accused, as appellant.

9. The consistent case put forth on the side of the prosecution is that on 20.05.2013, at about 4.00 p.m., the accused has entered into the hut of the defacto complainant and suddenly gagged the mouth of the victim by using his one hand and placed his other hand on her chest. Under the said circumstances, the accused has committed offences punishable under Sections mentioned in the charge.

10. The prosecution has set the law in motion only on the basis of Ex.P1, complaint. The author of Ex.P1 has been examined as P.W.1 and other alleged eye witnesses as well as the victim have been examined as P.Ws.2 to 5. The trial Court, after considering their evidence, has invited convictions and sentences as mentioned in the judgment.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has sparingly contended that the specific case of the prosecution is that the occurrence has taken place on 20.05.2013 at about 4.00 p.m. The defacto complainant has been examined as P.W.1 and during the course of chief-examination, he w