JUDGMENT :

P. VELMURUGAN, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur in Special S.C. No. 15 of 2018, dated 26.09.2018.

2. The respondent Police have registered a case in Crime No. 2 of 2018, for offence under Sections 9(m)(n) r/w 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 against the appellant on the complaint [Ex.P1] given by PW-2. After completing investigation, the respondent Police laid a charge sheet before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur and same was taken on file in Special S.C. No. 15 of 2018.

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 learned Sessions Judge, farmed charges under Sections 9(m) r/w 10 and 9(n) r/w 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012.

4. After completing the trial and hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found guilty of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 9(m) r/w 10 and 9(n) r/w 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for each of the offences, in default of payment of fine, the appellant has to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment for each of the offences.

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

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the date of occurrence is 17.02.2018, whereas the complaint was lodged with a delay of two days on 19.02.2018, for which, no explanation was given on the side of the prosecution. The complainant (PW-2)/father of the victim girl stated that only after discussing with the family members, he has given the complaint (Ex.P2) is not sufficient. The learned counsel would further submit that already there was a dispute between the appellant and the father of the victim girl (PW-2), due to which, he made a false complaint against the appellant in order to take vengeance. The witnesses PW-4 to PW-6 who are stated to be neighbours, actually they are not neighbours to the place of occurrence. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that there are material contradictions in the statement of the victim girl (PW-1) recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P7) and the evidence given by her as PW-1. The trial Court failed to appreciate the contradictions between the prosecution witnesses. Further, the evidence of the victim girl (PW-1) and her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not corroborated by any other prosecution witnesses to prove the guilt of the appellant and except PW-1, no eye witness in this case and no independent witness was examined by the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence and wrongly convicted the appellant on the ground of assumption, presumption and conjunction and also on the ground of sympathy and therefore, the judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set aside and the appellant has to be acquitted.

7. Mr. R. Suryaprakash, Government Advocate [Crl. Side] appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that out of 8 witnesses on the side of the prosecution, the victim girl (PW-1) was examined as PW-1. At the time of occurrence, she was a minor and aged about 12 years. On the date of occurrence i.e. on 17.02.2018, at about 05.00 p.m. the victim girl (PW-1) was taking bath in the bathroom situated near her house and there was no door for the bathroom. When she was applying soap over her face, the appellant came there, hugged her from behind and pressed her breast. Suddenly, the victim girl (PW-1) raised alarm and her