JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 20.09.2019 in Spl.S.C.No.2 of 2019 on the file of the learned Mahila Court, Perambalur.

2.According to the appellant, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.169 of 2019 against him for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 451, 506(i) of IPC and Sections 7 r/w 8 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereafter 'POCSO Act' for the sake of convenience]. On completion of the investigation, the respondent police filed a final report before the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur and the same was taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.2 of 2019. After framing of charges and on completion of trial, the accused/appellant found guilty under Section 451 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-; and also for the offence under Sections 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-. The accused/appellant was acquitted from the charges under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused is before this Court.

3.In order to prove the case of the prosecution before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution as many as 17 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.17 and also marked 14 documents as Exs.P1 to P14. 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, but, the accused has come with the version of total denial and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, no witness was examined and no document was marked.

4. The Court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the materials available on record, had convicted the accused/appellant for the offence as referred to above and sentenced him as stated earlier, which is challenged in this Criminal Appeal.

5.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the occurrence alleged to have taken place on 01.09.2018. After deliberation, P.W.1/ the de facto complainant, who is the mother of P.W.2 victim girl preferred a complaint before the respondent/police on the next day i.e. 02.09.2018, therefore, there was a delay of one day in preferring the complaint. He would further submit that the victim girl is very well known to the appellant and he is the local man and he has also helped for her studies. Even though the appellant is well known person to the victim girl, she has stated during trial before the learned Sessions Judge that she is not aware of the appellant. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the case that the appellant has committed the offence. The evidence of the victim girl was not corroborated by any other witnesses. He would further submit that the respondent/police have not examined any of the neighbours of the victim girl and also not given sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the complaint. Further, the doctor who was examined as P.W.5 has stated that the victim girl not sustained any injury. Therefore, the evidence of the doctor has not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The learned Sessions Judge, only on presumption come to the conclusion that the appellant found guilty for the offence under Sections 451 IPC and 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act 2012 and convicted and sentenced as referred to above, which warrants interference of this Court.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the victim girl was examined as P.W.2 and she has clearly narrated the facts that on 01.09.2018 at 5.30 p.m., while sleeping in her house, the accused has suddenly entered into the house and touched her chest and hugged her and imm