JUDGMENT :

The respondent police registered a case against the appellant in Crime No.4 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the 'POCSO' Act). After completion of investigation, the respondent police laid a charge sheet before the Special Court, Tiruppur. Since the offence falls against the woman as well as child, the learned Special Judge after taking the charge sheet on file and made it over to the file of Magalir Neethimandram, (Fast Track, Mahila Court), Tiruppur, in Spl.S.C.No. 24 of 2019 where charges were framed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 10 of the 'POCSO' Act. After conducting trial, the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 9(m), (n), (i) and punishable under Section 10 of the 'POCSO' Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant had preferred an appeal before this Court.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the entire case of the prosecution depends only on the evidence of PW1 who was the victim girl by herself and PW2-Meenambal, grand mother of the victim girl. Apart from that there is no independent witnesses to support the case of the prosecution. The evidence of these two witnesses have to be rejected on the sole ground that both of them are interested witnesses besides their testimony has not been corroborated by other witnesses or by the documents. Apart from the testimony of PW1 and 2, there is no other document or oral evidence to prove the case of the prosecution. Moreover, there are material contradictions between the FIR, the evidence of PW1 and 2. The deposition of PW1 and 2 prove that their deposition is by way of an after thought. He would further submit that the allegation in the FIR is that the appellant kissed in the cheeks of the victim girl whereas both PW1 and PW2 contradicted the same during the cross examination before the Trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Karunakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in [AIR 1976 SC 383]. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the material contradictions between the FIR and the evidence will be fatal to the case of the prosecution. There is no independent witnesses was examined, who had witnessed the Commission of Offence by the prosecution. The complaint was given after delay of three days and no proper reason was given for the same. Even though the victim girl stated that she suffered leg injury the same was not attested by the doctor. Therefore, the material contradictions between the evidence of the victim girl and the doctor who examined the victim girl as PW5, goes to the root of the matter. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Special Judge failed to appreciate the entire evidence, but based on the assumption and presumption wrongly convicted the appellant which warrants interference of this Court.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that at the time of occurrence the age of the victim girl was only 10 years. The appellant is the owner of the building in which the victim girl and her grand mother were residing as tenant. On the date of occurrence the victim girl was playing in the compound lane of her house at about 4.30 pm., The appellant who came there in an inebriated mood assaulted the victim girl repeatedly over both her cheeks and stamped her leg with his leg. He has also threatened the victim girl and asked her to come to his house and the victim girl went inside the house of the appellant. The appellant shut her mouth and kissed her over her lips. The appellant with the intent to sexually assault the victim girl has repeatedly slapped her over both her cheeks, s