JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive trial of cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, Salem in Special S.C.No.30 of 2019, dated 05.08.2020.

2.The respondent Police have registered a case in Crime No.9 of 2016, for offence under Section 5(m) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act') against the appellant on the complaint (Ex.P1) given by PW1. After completing investigation, the respondent police laid a charge sheet before the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive trial of cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, Salem and the same was taken on file in Special S.C.No.74 of 2016 and subsequently, it was renumbered as Special S.C.No.30 of 2019.

3.After completing the formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C., since there was a prima facie material to frame charges against the appellant, the learned Sessions Judge farmed charges under Section 6 of POCSO Act.

4.After completing the trial and hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Sessions Judge found that the appellant was guilty and convicted and sentenced him to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment for offence under Section 9(m), 9(n) r/w 10 and 18 of POCSO Act.

5.Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

6.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the family members of the appellant and the family of the victim girl (PW.2) are relatives and the appellant is the paternal uncle (rpj;jg;gh) of the victim girl (PW.2). The appellant belongs to 'Two Leaf' party and one Sathish (PW.4) belongs to 'Rising of Sun' party. There was a prior enmity between them before the occurrence. Due to which, a complaint was lodged by the appellant against the said Sathish (PW4), which is pending. The mother of the victim girl (PW1) has stated that the complaint (Ex.P1) was written by Sathish (PW.4). The said Sathish (PW.4) misguided the parents of the victim girl, foisted a false case against the appellant. The mother of the victim girl (PW.1) has stated that for one hour, her daughter (PW.2) was found missing, whereas the house of the appellant is nearer to the house of the victim girl. The learned counsel would further submit that the victim girl was sustained injury in the leg, whereas the Doctor has stated that there was no injury at the time of clinical examination. Further, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant has committed the aggravated penetrative sexual intercourse with the victim girl, whereas the Doctor (PW.7) has stated that there was no symptoms of penetrative sexual assault and therefore, there are material contradictions between the prosecution witnesses and documents, especially in the ocular evidence and the medical evidence. The learned trial Court failed to consider the same. Further, in this case no independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the appellant and all the witnesses were turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.

7.The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that in order to help Sathish (PW4), the parents of the victim girl (PW.1 and PW.3) have given a false evidence against the appellant, since the appellant had given a complaint against Sathish (PW.4). Under these circumstances, the judgment of the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel would further submit that the occurrence said to have taken place on 18.06.2016 and the complaint (Ex.P1) was given after due deliberation on 19.06.2016. Hence, there is a delay of one day in lodging the complaint (Ex.P1) and the delay has not been properly explained. The vict