JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the judgment and sentence dated 27.06.2019 imposed in Special.S.C.No.1 of 2018 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Karaikal.

2. The respondent police registered the case in Crime No.118/2017 against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 506(1) of IPC and also u/s.6 of POCSO Act. After completing the investigation, the respondent police laid charge-sheet before the Special Judge at Karaikal. Since the offence against the women, particularly child which falls under the POCSO Act, the learned Special Judge, taken the case on file in Spl.S.C.No.01/2018.

3. After completing the formalities, the learned Special Judge framed charges against the appellant for the offence u/s.506(i) of IPC and also offences punishable under Sections 4, 6, 8 and 10 of POCSO Act. After framing charge, during the trial, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 17 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to 17, 24 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24 and Material Objects 1 to 4 were marked. After completing the examination of the prosecution witnesses, incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were put before the appellant and he denied it as false and on the side of the defence and pleaded not guilty. On the side of defence, no oral and documentary evidence was produced.

4. After completing the trial and also hearing the arguments advanced on either side, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant for the offence u/s.506(ii) IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and also convicted the appellant for the offence punishable u/s.6 of POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo 10 years rigors imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment. The learned Special Judge found that the charges u/s.4, 8 and 10 of the POCSO Act are not proved. Against the conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge, the accused has preferred the present appeal before this court.

5. The learned Legal aid counsel for the appellant would submit that identification of the accused is in great suspicion and the mother of the victim girl has stated that the victim girl identified the accused from the school diary of victim and further he would submit that the prosecution stated that the accused took the victim girl to dining room and punched her private part and locked her. It is not stated that who has opened the lock and the person who opened the room and released the victim girl has not been examined and not been verified by the prosecution. The victim girl is 4 1/2 years at the time of occurrence and was studying L.K.G. at Vigneshwara High School, Madhur Road, Sethur Thirunallar, Karaikal. The appellant was working as Head Master in the same school. No Head Master would do this type of activities that too with L.K.G. student. There are material contradictions between the evidence of Prosecution witnesses. P.W.1, the mother of the victim girl stated that she informed to her brother seeking assistance of P.W.1 and P.W.3 brother. The mother and brother of the victim girl alleged to have taken the victim child P.W.2 to nearby female medical practitioner viz., Dr. Annie and the said doctor was examined as P.W.14 but she has stated that she only informed and asked her to go to Government Hospital and also to prefer the complaint. But thereafter the victim girl was not taken to the Government Hospital immediately and also not given the complaint. Even P.W.1 mother of the victim girl has stated that they consulted with the relatives and thereafter she made the complaint. The learned Legal Aid counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the complaint was given after discussion and deliberation and foisted a false case against the appellant. The alleged occurrence is said to have taken place on 18.08.2017 at about 9 a.m. The al