JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 23.05.2018, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore, in Spl.S.C.No.19 of 2017.

2. The respondent Police have registered a case in Crime No.23 of 2016 against the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act” for brevity), and Section 506(ii) IPC. After completing the investigation, they laid a charge-sheet before the Mahila Court, Cuddalore. Since the offence falls under POCSO Act, 2012, the learned Sessions Judge has taken the charge-sheet on file in Spl.S.C.No.19 of 2017.

3. After completing the formalities, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellant for the offences under Section 5(l) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506(ii) IPC.

4. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of one year, and also convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 506(ii) IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months.

5. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused is before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, originally the case was registered only under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, however, the learned Sessions Judge, erroneously convicted the appellant for the offences under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 506(ii) IPC. The learned counsel would further submit that there is no material or medical evidence to prove that the victim girl was subjected to rape, and therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant are not in accordance with law. Even as per the prosecution, the alleged occurrence of rape is said to have taken place within 10 feet from the house of the victim girl, however, the victim girl has not disclosed about the occurrence to her parents immediately, and therefore, the occurrence itself is very doubtful.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the victim girl was examined as P.W.2 and she has stated that the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place on two occasions, i.e. on 18.08.2016 and 03.09.2016, however, the victim girl informed about the occurrence to her mother (P.W.1) only on 23.09.2016, and thereafter, the mother (P.W.1) gave a complaint (Ex.P1) to the respondent Police on 23.09.2016 and an FIR was registered on the same day. The Inspector of Police (P.W.8) is the one who received the complaint on 23.09.2016 at 12.00 p.m., and the accused was arrested by the Police and the place of arrest is also in doubtful.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit there is a dispute between the families of the appellant and the victim girl. Due to such personal enmity and to take vengeance, the family of the victim girl have foisted a false case against the appellant and the same was also put as a suggestion during cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. The learned counsel would submit that the prosecution witnesses are only interested witnesses and there are material contradictions between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Though the mother of the victim girl (P.W.1) gave a complaint (Ex.P1) before the Police stating that, on two occasions, i.e. on 18.08.2016 and 03.09.2016, the appellant is said to have committed rape, the victim girl (P.W.2) has not made any statement about the second incident, dated 03.09.2016, before the Judicial Magistrate (P.W.5) while recording the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Moreover, though P.W.1, the mother of the victim girl, admi