JUDGMENT :

P. VELMURUGAN, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Magalir Court (Sessions Court), Vellore in Special S.C. No. 30 of 2018, dated 20.11.2019.

2. The respondent Police have registered a case in Crime No. 202 of 2017, for offence under Sections 366(A), 506(i) and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, against the appellant on the complaint (Ex.P1) given by the father of the victim child (PW-1). After completing investigation, the respondent police altered the Sections into 363, 366 and Section 6 r/w 5(l)(m) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act as per Alteration Report (Ex.P10) and laid a charge sheet before the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Magalir Court (Sessions Court), Vellore and the same was taken on file in Special S.C. No. 30 of 2018.

3. After completing the formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C. since there was a prima facie material to frame charge against the appellant, the learned Sessions Judge, farmed charges under Sections 366, 506(i) and Section 5(m) r/w 6 of the 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 trial Judge found the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced as follows:-

(i) For offence under Section 366 IPC, the appellant to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo one month Rigorous Imprisonment.

(ii) For offence under Section 5(m) r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, the appellant to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment.

(iii) For offence under Section 506(i) IPC, the appellant to undergo 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment.

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

6. Despite giving sufficient opportunity to the learned counsel for the appellant, he failed to argue the matter. Hence, this Court by order dated 10.03.2021 cancelled the vakalath and directed Registry to appoint Legal Aid Counsel and accordingly, Mr. C. Samivel has been appointed as Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant from the Legal Services Authority.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there are material contradictions between the prosecution witnesses, the trial Court failed to consider the same. The learned counsel would further submit that there was two days delay in lodging the complaint (Ex.P1), for which, the father of the victim child (PW-1) did not give proper explanation. In this case, only after deliberation and discussion with the neighbours and family members, the father of the victim child (PW-1) lodged the complaint (Ex.P1). If at all, the father of the victim child (PW-1) knew about the alleged sexual assault made by the appellant, soon after the occurrence he should have lodged the complaint against him, but he did not do so. Hence, it creates serious doubt on the case of the prosecution. Prior to the alleged occurrence i.e. on 30.07.2017, there was civil dispute between the appellant and the father of the victim child (PW-1). In order to take vengeance, the father of the victim child (PW-1) foisted a false case against the appellant. The learned trial Judge without analysing the same, had passed the judgment of conviction.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that after the occurrence, the victim child (PW-2) was taken to the Government Primary Health Centre, Serkadu, where the Doctor (PW-4) examined the victim child and found that there was swelling and reddish in colour in her private part and also oozing of blood and hence, she referred to Adukamparai Government Medical College and Hospital, Vellore and issued Medical Certif