JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge (Under the POCSO Act, 2012), Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry in Special S.C.No.30 of 2019, dated 13.10.2020.

2. The respondent Police have registered a case in Crime No.65 of 2019, for offence under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act') against the appellant on the complaint (Ex.P13) given by PW6. After completing investigation, the respondent Police laid a charge sheet before the learned Special Judge (Under the POCSO Act, 2012), Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry and same was taken on file in 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 Special Judge framed charges for offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act and Sections 450, 342 and 506(ii) IPC.

4. After completing the trial and hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Special Judge found guilty of the appellant and convicted and sentenced him as follows:-

For offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act, the appellant to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment.

For offence punishable under Section 450 of IPC, the appellant to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment.

For offence punishable under Section 342 IPC, the appellant to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. The appellant not found guilty for offence under Section 506(ii) IPC and he is acquitted.

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 vehemently contend that in this case, the identification of the appellant/accused itself is doubtful, since the person who alleged to have committed the offence was wearing uniform. The appellant has not weared uniform and he entered the house of the victim girl only for taking meter reading. Someone under the pretext of taking meter reading, might have entered the house of the victim girl and committed the offence and it is not the appellant. The learned counsel would further submit that when the victim girl (PW1) was examined before the trial Court, she was not in a position to identify the appellant. A bear reading of the evidence of the prosecution, shows that the victim girl was tutored by the adult memebers to depose against the appellant. If at all the appellant committed the offence, the victim girl had seen the appellant and definitely she could have identified him before the trial Court. Even in the statement given by the victim girl (PW1) under Section 164 Cr.P.C., before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry also, there are discrepancies and contradictions. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the brother (PW2) of the victim girl would not have been eye witness in this case. According to the case of the prosecution, the appellant sent out the brother of the victim girl (PW2) outside and locked the house inside and thereafter, he committed the offence. Therefore, at the time of occurrence, no one was present in the house. Even in evidence of other witnesses, there is no corroboration that the appellant is the person, who had come to the place of occurrence on the pretext of note down the meter reading and committed the offence. Even though the Attendance Register (Ex.P6) shows that on the date of occurrence the appellant was present, no witnesses have spoken that the appellant had gone to the house of the victim girl for tak