JUDGMENT :

P. VELMURUGAN, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court (POCSO Act Cases), Cuddalore in Special S.C. No. 19 of 2019, dated 10.03.2020.

2. The respondent Police have registered a case in Crime No. 10 of 2018, for offence under Section 450 IPC and Section 9(k), 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(w)(i) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 against the appellant on the complaint (Ex.P3) given by PW-1. After completing investigation, the respondent Police laid a charge sheet before the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court (POCSO Act Cases), and same was taken on file in Special S.C. No. 19 of 2019.

3. After completing the formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C. since there was a prima facie material to frame charges against the appellant, the Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 450 IPC and Section 9(k), 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’) and Section 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(w)(i) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

4. After completing the trial and hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Sessions Judge found guilty of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act and convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo one month Rigorous Imprisonment and acquitted him for offence under Section 450 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(w)(i) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

5. Challenging the above said Judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed the present appeal before this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that the victim girl (PW-9) is not a normal person, she is a special child and she is unable to speak and write. During recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, the victim girl was only put her thumb impression and she did not make signature in it, which shows that she did not understand what was recorded in the statement. The learned counsel would further submit that the brother of the victim girl (PW-7) is not an eye witnesses to the occurrence. According to the prosecution, he was only outside at the time of occurrence. The Doctor (PW-11) has clearly stated that the victim girl (PW-9) has not understood the questions asked while examining her clinically. The Special Teacher, who was examined as PW-10 has stated that he aided the trial Court to record the evidence of the victim girl (PW-9), but he has not produced any document to show that he is a qualified Psychiatric Doctor and fully qualified to understand the language of the special child. Therefore, in the absence of certificate for qualification, the evidence of the Special Teacher (PW-10) cannot be taken into consideration.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the evidence of the Doctor (PW-11) has not corroborated the case of the prosecution. The Doctor (PW-11) has clearly stated that there was no external injury on the private parts of the victim girl and no forcible sexual intercourse. PW-8, who is the brother of the victim girl is a small child and he cannot understand what had happened at the time of occurrence. In the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the children (PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9) have not stated all the things which they have deposed before the trial Court and hence, there are material contradictions and discrepancies in the oral and documentary evidence. The learned counsel would further submit that the age of the victim was not proved by the prosecution. Though the prosecution has stat