JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode in Special S.C.No.9 of 2018, dated 18.09.2019.

2. The respondent Police have registered a case in Crime No.6 of 2017, for offence under Sections 3 r/w 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and Sections 3(1)(w)(ii) & 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 against the appellant on the complaint (Ex.P1) given by the victim child (PW2). After completing investigation, the respondent police laid a charge sheet before the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode and the same was taken on file in Special S.C.No.9 of 2018.

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 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and Section 3(1)(w)(ii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

4. After completing the trial and hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Judge found the appellant guilty for offence punishable under Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and convicted and sentenced him to undergo 8 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and acquitted from under Section 3(1)(w)(ii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

5. Challenging the above said Judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed the present appeal before this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place on 01.07.2017, the complaint (Ex.P1) was not given immediately. On the next day of occurrence i.e., on 02.07.2017, the grandfather (PW6) of the victim child (PW6) informed the parents of the victim child about the occurrence. On receipt of the information, her parents arrived on 03.07.2017, but the complaint came to be lodged on 06.07.2017 and the delay for five days in lodging the complaint has not been properly explained by the prosecution. After due deliberation and discussion, a false complaint came to be lodged against the appellant. Though the victim child (PW2) in the statement recorded under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C., (Ex.P2) has stated that when her grandfather was called her at about 11.00 p.m., she was fainted and unconscious and the next day morning only she recovered and went to her house, in the complaint (Ex.P1), she has stated that since it was night hours, she slept there itself and on the next day morning on 02.07.2017 at about 04.30 a.m., she woke up and went to her house. Thus, there are material contradictions in the statement of the victim child and the complaint and it creates strong suspicion and the benefit of doubt is to be extended.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that though the trial Court has rightly acquitted the appellant under Section 3(1)(w)(ii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, without any sufficient and substantive material convicted the appellant for offence punishable under the 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012. The Doctor (PW4) one, who examined the victim child, has clearly stated that there was no external injury on the body of the victim child and merely because the hymen was not intact, it cannot be said that it is due to sexual intercourse. Further, the victim child has stated that the appellant forcibly had a sexual inter