JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 08.01.2018 made in Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2016 on the file of the Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur.

2. The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.168 of 2016 against the appellant for offence under Section 7 r/w 8 of 'The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012' [hereinafter 'POCSO Act' for the sake of convenience]. After investigation, a charge sheet was laid before the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur, since the offence is against a woman especially child. The learned Sessions Judge, after completing the formalities, taken the case on file in Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2016 and framed charge against the appellant for offence under Section 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act. On completion of trial, the trial Court found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for one year. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused has filed the present appeal before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for appellant would submit that there is a dispute pending between the appellant's family and the victim family with regard to a temple. He further submit that due to the enmity prevailed between the two families, a false case has been foisted against the appellant. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution are relatives of the victim girl and no independent witness was examined on the side of the prosecution. P.W.3, who is the aunt of victim girl came to the scene of occurrence and at that time she saw nothing and no significance can be attached to her evidence. If at all the appellant forcibly bite the lip of the victim girl under the guise of kissing her, then an injury would have been caused. P.W.8-Doctor, who examined the victim girl did not notice any injury on the victim girl, but he found only a contusion on the upper lip of the victim girl, which cannot be caused by bite. It is stated that the occurrence said to have taken place on 08.01.2018 whereas the respondent police had taken the victim girl to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram to record a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C only on 23.03.2018, after a much delay. Therefore, no significance can be attached on the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C from the victim girl, which is against the provision of POCSO Act. The learned counsel for appellant would submit that the appellant sustained injury and the prosecution has not explained as to how the appellant has sustained injury. There is a material contradiction between the prosecution witnesses and there is no eye witness in this case. P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are only hearsay witnesses. Even though P.W.3 is the victim girl's aunt, who is the sole eye witness, has not stated anything about the occurrence. The place of arrest of the accused also highly doubtful and prosecution has not properly investigated the matter and simply supported the case of the victim girl and in order to take vengeance against the accused, false case has been foisted. Unfortunately, prosecution has sailed on the victim family and the investigation was not conducted in a fair manner and the evidence of P.W.1 was not corroborated by any of the other eye witnesses or the medical evidence. The learned Sessions Judge failed to consider that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt and only convicted on the ground of sympathy, which warrants interference by this Court.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that P.W.1 is the victim girl, who was aged about 15 years at the time of occurrence. She was studying X Standard at AVAT School, Shyamalapuram. The appellant/accused was also residing opposite to the house of victim girl. Under the guise of