JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 04.12.2020 in Old Spl.S.C.No.9 of 2018 and New Spl.S.C.No.70 of 2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court for POCSO Act Cases, Salem.

2.According to the appellant, the respondent police registered a case against him in Crime No.161 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act. After investigation, the respondent police laid a charge sheet before the learned District and Sessions Mahila Judge, Salem. The learned Judge initially taken the case on file in Spl.S.C.No.9 of 2018, subsequently, it was renumbered as Spl.S.C.No.70 of 2019. On completion of trial, the learned Sessions Judge by judgment dated 04.12.2020 convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Challenging the said order, the appellant/accused is before this Court.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.08.2016, the victim girl along with his mother and brother were travelled in Palani Express train from Chennai to Dindigul in Coach No.S6. The victim girl was sleeping in berth No.10 and her mother and brother were sleeping in berth Nos.13 and 11, whereas, the accused was also travelled along with the victim girl in the same coach at berth No.14. When the said express train nearer to Salem, the accused sexually assaulted the victim girl, who is aged about 15 years. Immediately, the victim girl informed the same to her mother, thereafter, the mother, in turn, informed the same to T.T.I and Head Constables, those who were travelling as escorts in the said train. Thereafter, they preferred a complaint before the Salem Railway Police Station and registered a case against the appellant/accused. After completing the formalities, the learned Sessions Judge, framed charge and convicted the accused after trial.

4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution as many as 11 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.11 and also marked 11 documents as Exs.P1 to P11 and no material object was exhibited.

5.On completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C about the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and he denied each and every circumstances as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence no witness was examined and no document was marked.

6. The Court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also looking into the materials available on record, found the accused/appellant guilty and awarded punishments, as referred to above, which is challenged in this Criminal Appeal.

7.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

8.1 The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there are no eye witnesses to the said occurrence. The victim girl only under illusion felt that somebody touched her chest, immediately, she informed to her mother, the mother also not seeing the said occurrence, preferred the complaint against the appellant. The mother of the victim girl was examined as P.W.1, even in the Ex.P1 complaint, the mother has neither named the appellant nor identified the appellant. She has only deposed that some unknown person tried to misbehave with her daughter, therefore, they preferred the complaint. The First Information Report also does not speak about the overtact against the appellant. At the time of giving evidence before the trial Court P.W.1 has not identified or named the appellant and she has stated that he might be the said person. Even, the victim girl who was examined as P.W.2 also deposed that when she was in deep sleep, she felt that somebody standing nearer to her berth and pu