The importance of considering the testimony of a victim of sexual violence as that of an injured witness and the wide scope of the penal provisions under the POCSO Act.

P. DEVADASS, J.

1. The sole accused in the Special Sessions Case in Spl. S.C.No.15 of 2015 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, he was convicted and sentenced as under:-

Conviction	Sentence
Section 354C IPC	R.I for one year and fine Rs.1,000/-, i/d 2 months S.I
Section 450 IPC	R.I for 3 years and fine Rs.2,000/-, i/d 6 months S.I
Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act)	R.I for 10 years and fine Rs.5,000/-, i/d 1 year R.I

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. PWs.1 and 6 are daughters of PWs.2 and 3. PW-6 is adult, while PW-1 was then below 14 years old (As per Section 2(d) POCSO Act, a 'child' is below 18 years). They are residing in Chinnavalayam village in Ariyalur District. The accused is their neighbour. His father is a brother to PW-1's father/PW-3. So the accused is brother to PWs.1 and 6. They are in prohibited degree of relationship because of consanguinity.

4. The accused is alleged to have committed voyeurism with reference to PW-6 and committed sexual assault on PW-1. PW-1 is the victim. PW-16, a lady Doctor, tendered corroborative medical evidence. Placing reliance on the prosecution evidence, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as stated already.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant contended that because of previous enmity using his daughters PWs.1 and 6, PW-3 has foisted this case against the accused. There are material contradictions in the FIR, statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. from PW-1 and the evidence of main prosecution witnesses. They are interested witnesses also.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the evidence of PW-1 that she had nail markings stand contradicted by the medical evidence of PW-17. The medical evidence is also not clinching in this case.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that there is significant delay in lodging the FIR. The prosecution witnesses cannot be believed. There is prima facie case in favour of the accused. He is in jail for a longtime. In the circumstances, he may be granted appeal bail.

8. The prosecution side filed counter.

9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that this prosecution is not for an offence under Section 376 IPC. It is under certain penal provisions of POCSO Act. There is minute distinction between both the penal statutes.

10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that there is clear cut evidence of the victim that she has been subjected to sexual assault. There is medical evidence. There is no acceptable motive to reject the testimony of the victim. There is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. This case is not a fit case for grant of appeal bail.

11. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the averments in the appeal bail petition, counter filed by the prosecution, Trial Court's judgment and the piece of evidence referred to by both side and the relevant materials on record.

12. In the facts and circumstances, now the question is whether the petitioner could be granted appeal bail under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C.

13. To grant bail pending consideration of Criminal Appeal, the Appellate Court cannot indulge in meticulous examination of the entire evidence which is to be done at the time of hearing the main Criminal Appeal. However, for the purpose of granting the relief of appeal bail, the Court must see is there any prima facie case in favour of the accused. For this purpose, the Appellate Court has to refer to the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the relevant piece of evidence. It must also take into account the nature of the accusations, the gravity of the of