JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 09.07.2019 passed in Spl.C.No.24 of 2017 by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 04.04.2016, when the victim girl was alone in her house, the accused/appellant entered into her house and threatened her and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Thereafter, on 14.11.2016, once again he has committed the said offence. Subsequently, the parents came to know about the incident P.W.1, the mother of the victim girl lodged a complaint against the appellant.

3.The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.7 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Section 4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereafter 'POCSO Act' for the sake of convenience] and Section 376 IPC. On the basis of the complaint, the respondent police investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu. Since the offence is against a child, it falls within the meaning of POCSO Act and the learned Sessions Judge had taken cognizance of the charge sheet in Spl.C.No.24 of 2017. After completing formalities, the trial Court framed the charges against the appellant for the offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act.

4.In order to prove the case of the prosecution before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution as many as 15 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.15 and also marked Exs.P1 to P16 and no material object was marked. After completion of the prosecution side evidences, the incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidences of prosecution witnesses were put against the appellant/accused and the appellant/accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was marked.

5.The Court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the materials available on record, found that the accused/appellant is guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, besides that awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the victim girl as per the victim compensation.

6.Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court.

7.1 The learned legal aid counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there was a material contradiction in the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C and 164(5) Cr.P.C and during the trial. The Doctor, P.W.10, who examined the victim girl has deposed that there was no external injury or any other mark and also there was no recent possibility of sexual intercourse, hence, the medical evidence not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, there is no material or medical evidence to prove that the victim girl was subjected to aggravated penetrative sexual assault and thus, the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant is not in accordance with law. Further, P.W.1, the mother of the victim girl has deposed that the appellant used to come to her house when they are available in the house; the father of the victim girl P.W.3 has deposed that he know the appellant for the few months, he used to come to his house only when they are available in the house; whereas, the victim girl has deposed that the appellant and his sister used to come to her house. Therefore, there is a material contradiction between the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3. He would further submit that there was a delay in filing the complaint. Even though, the delay in preferring the complaint has not been properly explained, however, the learned judge failed to consider the unexplained delay and convicted the a