JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 29.04.2019 in Spl.C.C.No.13 of 2018 by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (FTMC) Uthagamandalam, the Nilgiris.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 12.07.2018 at 16.00 hours when the victim girl P.W.2, who was studying 5th standard, came out of her house to pluck the dried flowers from the plants, the accused/appellant came in front of her house, with a sexual intent lifted his white dhoti and pulled down his underwear and caught hold of his private part in his hand and shaked it and asked the victim girl to come near to him. At that time, neighbours P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5, came there and scolded the accused and immediately, the accused moved away from that place and thereafter, they informed the said occurrence to the mother of the victim girl. Subsequently, (P.W.1) the mother of the victim girl lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) against the appellant.

3.On receipt of the complaint, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.4 of 2018 against the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 11(i) r/w 12 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereafter referred to as 'POCSO Act' for the sake of convenience]. After investigation, the respondent police filed a charge sheet before the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (FTMC), Udhagamandalam at Nilgiris and the same was taken on file in Spl.C.C.No.13 of 2018. After trial, the trial Court framed charges against the appellant for the offence under Section 11(i) r/w 12 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 16 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.16 and Exs.P1 to P12 were marked and no material object was marked. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of the 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 produced.

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 under Section 11(i) r/w 12 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and also awarded Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the victim girl under Section 33(8) of the POCSO Act.

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

7.1 The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that as the occurrence said to have taken place in the open place, where the public movement are available, no prudent man would commit the said offence in the open place. He would further submit that there was a previous enmity between the appellant and P.W.1, the mother of the victim girl regarding money transaction and hence, a false case has been foisted against the appellant. There are discrepancies and contradictions in the complaint and the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C and also the evidence before the trial Court. P.Ws.3 to 8 are interested witnesses as they are close relatives and friends of P.W.1. Further, the prosecution has examined the neighbours as witnesses in a pick and choose method. Further, P.W.3 and P.W.4, who have witnessed the said occurrence are not at all reliable and acceptable, since they go for job along with P.W.1 and hence, their evidence could not be taken for supporting the case of the prosecution. Further, P.W.2, the victim girl was tutored by the police to give such a false evidence during trial. He would further subm