JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur in Spl.S.C.No.14 of 2016 dated 22.01.2019.

2. Heard Mr. Durai Kannan, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Suryaprakash, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent police.

3. The respondent police had registered a case in Cr.No.12 of 2015 against the accused for the offences under Sections 365 & 366 (A) IPC. After completing investigation, the charges were framed for the offences under Section 363 IPC and under Sections 5(l) r/w. 6, 5(n) r/w.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the first accused and under Sections 16 r/w. 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “POCSO Act”) against the present appellant/second accused.

4. After completing the investigation, the respondent Police laid a charge-sheet before the Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur. Since the offence falls under POCSO Act, 2012, the learned Judge has taken cognizance of the charge-sheet in Spl.S.C.No.14 of 2016.

5. After completing the formalities, the learned Judge framed charges against the present appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 16 r/w. 17 of the POCSO Act.

6. After trial, the learned Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur convicted the appellant herein for the offences punishable under Sections 16 r/w. 17 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of 2 years.

7. After framing charges and in order to prove the case on the side of the prosecution, 13 witnesses were examined and 21 documents were marked and material object M.O.1 was exhibited.

8. After completing the prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances culled out from the prosecution witnesses were put before the appellant. He denied the same as false. However, on the side of the appellant, no oral or documentary evidence was produced.

9. After considering the evidence on record and hearing on either side, the learned Judge, by judgment dated 22.01.2019 in Spl. S.C.No.14 of 2016, convicted the first accused for the offences under Section 363 IPC and under Sections 5(l) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo a further period of one year for the offence under 363 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.15,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 2 years for the offence under Section 5(l) r/w. 6 of the POCSO Act and convicted the present appellant/ second accused for the offences under Sections 16 r/w.17 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.15,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 2 years.

10. Challenging the said conviction and sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment passed by the trial Court, the second accused has filed the present appeal before this Court.

11. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is not a prime accused in this case and the charges framed against him are for the offences under Sections 16 r/w. 17 of the POCSO Act. The appellant has nothing to do with the alleged offences and no witnesses have spoken about the specific overt act against this appellant, except the victim girl in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., has spoken about him. In the 164 Cr.P.C., statement also, she has not stated anything against the appellant but stated that the first accused has introd