The sole accused in the Special Sessions Case in Spl. S.C. No. 1 of 2016 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur seeks suspension of his sentence of imprisonment.

2. In the said Court, after trial, while acquitting the accused under Section 450 IPC, the accused was convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter POCSO Act) and sentenced him to undergo RI for 10 years and fine Rs.50,000/-, i/d 2 years SI.

3. The learned Judge also directed the payment of Rs.25,000/- out of the total fine amount as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. He has also directed the District Legal Services Authority to award more compensation.

4. The Trial Court considering the evidence of PW-1, the victim, the child, under Section 2(1)(d) of the POCSO Act and considered it as a case under Section 5(l) of the Act punished him under Section 6 of the Act.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in this case the alleged victim is about 20 years old. The evidence of PW-2/mother of PW-1, would show that at the time of admitting her daughter in the school, she did not mention her age and her birth was also not registered. She admits that her daughter's age has been recorded by the School Authorities themselves. Further in her cross-examination, PW-1 herself admitted that while admitting her in the school, 3 years age has been reduced. In her deposition, PW-1 had stated that she was 20 years, in 2016 when the victim girl was examined in the Court, she had stated that she is 20 years old. All goes to show that at any rate she is above 18 years of age. So the provisions of POCSO Act will not be applicable to this case.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to statement of the victim girl given before the Court under Section 164 Cr.P.C., submitted that the victim girl had stated that she pressurised the accused and had sex with him. Further, before the Trial Court also, her evidence is on similar line. Thus, it is a case of consensual sex by an adult woman. So no offence has been made out.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that actually the case was registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by P.W.-12, wife of the accused under the provisions of the Child Marriage Restraint Act. After investigation by an alteration report, the Investigation Officer added the provisions of POCSO Act. The investigation is faulty.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the main witnesses of the prosecution, namely, P.Ws-1 and 2 have not supported the prosecution version and there is no incriminating aspects in their evidence, convicting the accused is not in accordance with law.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the accused is victim of circumstances. He is the real sufferer. Thus the petitioner has prima facie case in his favour. He will not escape. In the circumstances, he may be granted appeal bail.

10. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that during the relevant time, the victim being a minor girl, below 18 years has been clearly established by the prosecution. It is proved through PW-7 School Headmaster, and Exs.P-11 and P-12 School records. It shows that she was a minor girl. Further, the medical evidence of PW-3 also establishes so. Pws-1 and 2 also initially stated so. However, in order to help the accused to escape from punishment, now they gave oral evidence in support of him. But it is against reality of the situation. Even PW-2 in Ex.C-1 petition, while seeking custody of PW-1 had stated that then girl was a minor.

11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that because of the sexual assault committed upon the minor child, she became pregnant and gave birth to a child on 20.3.1998 (See Ex.P-1 Birth Certificate). He has been named Varun and the child's parents were named as PW-1 and the accused. Dur