JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu in Spl.C.No.22 of 2017 dated 02.11.2019.

2. The respondent-Police have registered a case against the appellant in Crime No.15 of 2016 for the offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. After the investigation, the offence was altered from Section 8 to Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and a charge sheet was filed before the Sessions Judge Mahila Court, Chengalpattu. Since the offence against the children falls under the POCSO Act, the learned Sessions Judge, after taking a charge sheet on file in Spl.C.No.22 of 2017, completed the formality and framed the charges. After the completion of trial, the Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, the accused has filed the present appeal before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that due to the personal enmity of the mother of the victim girl with the appellant, a false case was foisted against the appellant and even though the prosecution did not prove their case beyond all reasonable doubts, the appellant was simply convicted only on the ground of sympathy. He would further submit that no opportunity was given to the appellant to cross-examine mother of the victim girl (P.W.1) and the victim girl (P.W.2), which was very vital for the appellant. He further stated that at 1.30 pm, the victim girl might have gone to the school and it is not possible for her to go to the appellant's shop and there is no eye witness other than (P.W.2). P.W.3 and P.W.4 are not the eye witnesses, they have seen the mother and the victim girl only at 5.00 clock when the mother of the victim girl went to the appellant's shop. Further, he would submit that the victim girl was subjected to the medical examination and there is no corroborated evidence. As the appellant was not given the opportunity to cross examine, the judgment of the Trial Court has to be set aside on the ground of denial of opportunity.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that the victim girl was aged only about 10 years, studying in 5th Std and was examined as (P.W.2). She has clearly narrated the occurrence that at the time of the incident, her mother was not in the house as she went out to her job and when she returned to home, the victim girl informed her about the occurrence. Thereafter, the mother of the victim girl made a complaint before the respondent-Police and the Police filed a charge sheet. On the side of the prosecution, 11 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.11 and 7 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 and the charge against the appellant under Section 10 of the POCSO Act was proved beyond all reasonable doubts. On the date of occurrence, there was an annual holiday in the school of the victim girl, therefore, she did not go to the school and when she went to the appellant's shop for buying snacks, the appellant called her into his shop and misbehaved with her. Proper opportunity was given to the appellant but he has not cross-examined the victim girl and her mother. Subsequently, he filed the petition in March, 2019 and the same was dismissed by the Trial Court. Thereafter, he challenged the said order before this Court and this Court has also confirmed the order of the Trial Court. Since sufficient opportunity was given to the appellant and he has not cross-examined P.W.1 & P.W.2, the prosecution has proved their case beyond all reasonable doubts. As there was no penetrative sexual intercourse, the victim girl was not subjected to a medical examination. Therefore, non-producing the victim girl f