JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 26.08.2019 in Spl.S.C.No.14 of 2019 on the file of the learned Magalir Neethi Mandram, Fast Track Mahila Sessions Court, Thiruppur.

2. The case of the prosecution is that at the time of occurrence, the victim girl was aged about 7 years and studying in 3rd standard. The appellant is none other than the uncle of the victim girl. The father of the victim girl deserted her mother and they were living separately. During the school vacation, the victim girl and her mother used to go to the accused house, to see her maternal grand father. When the victim girl was alone at home, the accused committed penetrative sexual assault with her and the accused used to misbehave with her for about 3 years. The accused also threatened the victim girl to maintain secrecy.

Subsequently, the parents came to know about the incident and lodged a complaint against the appellant on 08.08.2017 to the respondent police.

3. The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.10 of 2018 against the appellant for the offence under Section 5(l)(m)(n) and punishable under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereafter 'POCSO Act' for the sake of convenience] and Section 506(i) IPC, which was later altered into Section 5(l)(m)(n) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 506(ii) IPC. After investigation, the respondent police filed a charge sheet before the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, Fast Track Mahila Court, Thiruppur and the same was taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.14 of 2019.

4. After completing the formalities, the trial Court framed the charges against the appellant for the offence under Sections 5(l) r/w 6, 5(m) r/w 6 and 5(n) r/w 6 of POCSO Act and Section 506(ii) IPC.

5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution as many as 8 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and Exs.P1 to P14 were marked and no material objects were exhibited. After completion of the prosecution side evidences, the incriminating circumstances were put against the appellant/accused by examining the appellant/accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and he denied all the incriminating circumstances as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, two witnesses were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and no document was marked.

6. The Court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the materials available on record, found that the accused/appellant is guilty under Section 9(l) r/w 10, 9(m) r/w 10, 9(n) r/w 10 of POCSO Act and convicted him and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each of the offence and in default, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, for each of the offences and ordering the sentences to run concurrently.

7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court.

8.1 The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is none other than the maternal uncle of the victim girl(P.W.1) and there is no material or medical evidence to prove that the victim girl was sexually assaulted by the appellant. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant are not in accordance with law.

The statement of the victim girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C (Ex.P13) does not corroborate with the evidence of the victim girl, during trial and there are material contradictions in the evidence of the victim girl. There is no eye witness to the said occurrence, except the evidence of the victim girl. Further, the teacher, who was examined as P.W.2 wrongly mentioned the age of the victim girl and the Doctor (P.W.6), who examined the victim girl has deposed that there was no external injuries found on the body of the victim girl and also deposed that there was no traces of subjecting the child to sexual interco