ORDER :

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment passed in Spl.S.C.No.54/2016 by the learned Sessions Judge Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri dated 20.11.2018.

2. The respondent-Police registered a case against the appellant in Crime No.17 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 450 IPC, 5(l) and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. After the investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the same was taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.54 of 2016, on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri.

3. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, during the course of investigation, 13 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW13 and 19 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P19. After completing the examination of the prosecution witnesses, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with regard to incriminating materials available in the evidence against him, he denied his complicity in the crime and on the side of the defence, neither witness was examined nor any document was produced.

4. The learned Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, after completion of the trial, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 450 IPC and a fine of Rs.12,000/- in default to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment and also convicted and sentenced him to undergo 15 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 5(l) r/w Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and a fine of Rs.15,000/- in default to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment.

5. As aggrieved against the order of conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred the present Criminal Appeal before this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that both the appellant and victim are the relatives and at the time of alleged offence, the appellant was staying in the house of the victim and therefore, the ingredients of Section 450 IPC will not meet out and there is no evidence to show that the appellant proceeded into the house of victim and committed the offence under Section 5(l) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act. The learned counsel would further submit that there was a delay in filing the complaint and the delay has not been properly explained, which is a fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that PW1/Valli is the mother of the PW2/victim girl and PW3 is the father of PW2/victim girl. During the examination before the trial court, the parents of the the victim girl have not supported the case of the prosecution and the victim girl herself has stated that no offence has been committed by the appellant. Further, he would submit that PW7/Doctor has also given the evidence by stating that there were no external injuries found in the body of the victim, however, the Lower Court failed to consider all those aspects and erroneously convicted the appellant. The headmaster, one who was examined as PW-9, has clearly admitted that there is no proper evidence for date of birth of the victim girl in the school records and as such, the prosecution has not proved its case beyond the reasonable doubt. Even, the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer has not been substantiated during trial and there is no corroborative evidence by the parents of the victim girl and they have not stated before the Trial Court that the appellant has committed the offence under Section 450 IPC, 5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and the Trial Court failed to consider the above aspects and however, convicted the appellant and awarded maximum punishment, which warrants interference.

7. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that at the time of occurrence, the age of the victim girl was only 15 years and to substantiate the same, the birth certificate of the victim girl (Ex.P19) was produced. The date of occurrence is between 20.07.2016 and 15.08.2016. Therefore, at the relevant point of time, the age of the victim gir