JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, as against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Coimbatore [Essential Commodities Special Court] in Special C.C.No.4 of 2016, dated 23.01.2018, convicting the appellant to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 3 r/w. 5(m) and r/w. Section 6 of POCSO Act and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default 6 months rigorous imprisonment.)

1. The convicted sole accused is the appellant herein. The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Coimbatore [Essential Commodities Special Court] in Special C.C.No.4 of 2016, dated 23.01.2018, convicting the appellant under Section 3 r/w. 5(m) and r/w. Section 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment.

2. The respondent police has filed charge sheet against the accused herein in Crime No.41 of 2015 for the offence under Section 3 r/w. 5(m) and r/w. Section 6 of POCSO Act.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-

[i] The complainant is the mother of the victim girl. The accused is the friend of the father of the victim girl namely, Mohanapriya, who is aged about 10 years. On the occurrence date, i.e., on 26.11.2015 at about 06.30 p.m., the accused came to the victim girl’s house. At that time, the victim girl, her mother and her grandmother were there and the father of the victim girl was out of station. The accused told them that due to matrimonial dispute, his wife and child went to his wife’s parents house at Royarpalayam and if they sent their daughter (victim girl) along with him, it will helpful to compromise them. Accordingly, they sent the victim girl along with the accused. While the accused and the victim girl were going from Chandrapuram towards Sundamendu, there was a maize field and the accused taken the victim girl into the maize field and committed sexual assault and the same was reported to the respondent police by P.W.1 on 27.11.2015 at about 11.10 p.m. After receipt of that complaint, P.W.11-Sub Inspector of Police attached with Thudiyalur police station registered an FIR in crime No.41/2015 for the offence under Section 3(a) r/w. Section 4 of POCSO Act.

[ii] P.W.12-Inspector of Police attached with Perur police station, took the case for investigation, examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and recorded their statements and prepared mahazar and sent the victim girl for medical examination on 28.11.2015. P.W.13-Inspector of Police, who took up the case for further investigation, arrested the accused on 30.11.2015 and sent him for medical examination on 05.12.2015. Further, she examined P.W.7 and P.W.8 and recorded their statements and thereby, closed the investigation on 21.01.2016 and laid charge sheet against the accused.

[iii]. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and marked documents Exs.P.1 to P.12. On the side of the defence, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and marked documents Exs.D.1 to D.7.

[iv]. The trial Court, on consideration of the evidence of P.W.2-victim girl coupled with P.W.8, medical evidence and Ex.P.10-Accident Register copy, has held that the victim was subjected to sexual assault and called upon the accused to rebut the presumption as contemplated under Section 29 of the POCSO Act.

[v]. On proper appreciation of the evidence of D.W.1-Doctor and D.W.2 with Exs.D.1 to D.6, the trial Court has held that the injuries said to have been caused upon the accused are subsequent to the act of the accused in committing the sexual assault on the victim girl by the village mob and thus, rejected the suggestive case and laid the conviction and sentence as stated supra.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that there is a material contradiction between the version of the victim girl/PW2 wi