JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu in Special C.No.16 of 2017, dated 11.07.2019.

2. The respondent Police registered a case in Crime No.7 of 2016 for offence under Sections 354(b), 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 against the appellant on the complaint [Ex.P1] given by PW1. After completing the investigation, the respondent police laid a charge sheet before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chengalpattu and the same was taken on file in Special C.No.16 of 2017.

3. After completing the formalities, since there was a prima facie material to frame charges against the appellant, the learned Sessions Judge, farmed charges for offences under Sections 354(b), 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012.

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 guilty of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 354(B), 506(1) of IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 354(B) of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d. to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 506(1) of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- i/d to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and acquitted from the charges under Section 354 D(1)(i) of IPC.

5. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there was a delay in filing the case. The occurrence said to have been taken place on 19.07.2016 whereas, the complaint was given only on 26.07.2016 at about 4.30 pm. Therefore, there was an inordinate delay in filing the complaint and the delay has not been properly explained on the side of the prosecution and the inordinate delay is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Ex.P1-complaint came into existence after due discussion and deliberation which would fatal to the case of the prosecution.

7. Further he would submit that the prosecution has not produced the birth certificate of the victim girl and proved that the victim girl was a child defined under POCSO Act. The non production of the birth certificate and non proving the age of the victim girl, she is under 18 years and the same is also fatal to the case of the prosecution. From the medical evidence, it is clear that there was no external injury found in the private part of the victim. Therefore, the medical evidence has not corroborated the evidence of the victim and also which shows that there was no forceful sexual. The prosecution has not examined the father of the victim girl, grandmother and maternal uncle of the victim girl and also delay in filing the FIR creates serious doubt in the case of the prosecution. Only the prosecution has foisted false case, defacto complainant filed a false complaint against the appellant only in order to marry the appellant to the victim and they foisted the false case and also prosecution also without properly conducting the investigation and filed charge sheet. Therefore, warrants interference of this Court.

8. The learned Government Advocate would submit that at the time of the occurrence, the age of the victim girl was only 15 years and she was studying 10th std, when he goes and proposed his love and she refused and one day on the date of occurrence on 19.07.2016, when the victim girl had gone for grazing her ca