The evidence of the victim girl was crucial in establishing the guilt of the accused under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.

This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 08.10.2015 passed in Special Case No.3 of 2015 on the file of the Mahila Court, Chengalpattu. By the said judgment, the appellant/accused was convicted for the offence under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

2. Before going into the details of the evidence, the brief case of the prosecution is stated hereunder:

(a) P.W.1 lodged a complaint Ex.P-1 stating that her husband P.W.2 is working as Driver and she is having a son by name Sivalingam (P.W.4), aged about 12 years and a minor daughter--P.W.3 victim girl Gayathri alias Murugeswari, aged about 8 years.

(b) In the said complaint, P.W.1 alleged that on 31.07.2014 at about 8 p.m., P.W.2 Selvam (husband of P.W.1) and P.W.5 Selvam (sound service man) were conversing with each other near Kolachi Ammal Temple; P.W.1's son and daughter were playing near the said Temple; P.W.1 was doing household work in her house. At that time, the appellant/accused came in a motor-cycle and took P.W.1's son and daughter, namely P.W.3 and P.W.4.

(c) In the complaint, she further stated that P.W.3 alone came to the house, crying; on enquiry, she stated that the appellant/accused took her to a dark place near Oorapakkam VGP Ground and removed her dresses and rubbed her body including private parts, thereby committed sexual assault on her. P.W.3 told that she escaped from the appellant/accused. The said complaint Ex.P-1 was lodged by P.W.1 on 01.08.2014 and P.W.12 Inspector of Police registered the complaint at about 8 a.m. on the same day in Crime No.753 of 2014 against the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

(d) Thereafter, P.W.12 took up the investigation; he went to the scene of occurrence at about 9.15 a.m. on the same day and prepared Exs.P-3 and P-4 observation mahazars in the presence of P.W.6 and P.W.7 respectively and drew Ex.P-7 rough sketch. Subsequently, P.W.12 recorded the statements of P.Ws.1, 2, 4, 10 and 11 and one Ramachandran. He made arrangements to record the statement of P.W.3 victim girl by a Women Police, which was accordingly recorded by one Lakshmi, Sub-Inspector of Police, Otteri Police Station. On the same day, i.e. on 01.08.2014 at about 12 noon, P.W.12 arrested the appellant/accused and remanded him to judicial custody.

(e) On 10.09.2014, P.W.12 went to the School where P.W.3 victim girl studied and made enquiry with the Headmaster and obtained Certificate Ex.P-5 showing the proof of the age of P.W.3 victim girl. Subsequently, since the victim girl P.W.3 is aged below 12 years, P.W.12 altered the offence from Section 8 to Section 10 of the POCSO Act and sent Ex.P-8 offence alteration report to concerned Court. After completion of the detailed investigation and based on the materials available on record, P.W.12 filed charge sheet/final report on 11.09.2014 before the concerned Court, against the appellant/accused. The charge-sheet/final report was taken on file by the trial Court and after framing charge under the above said Section against the appellant/accused, the trial was conducted by the trial Court in Special Case No.3 of 2015.

3. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and exhibited eight documents.

4. When the appellant/accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied his complicity in the crime. He neither examined any witness nor marked any document.

5. Upon hearing the submissions of either side and considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated supra. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused has filed this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that initially, the