JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records in connection with the Spl.S.C.No.14/2018 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge (Fast Track Magalir Neethimandram), Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District and set aside the judgment dated 09.02.2021.)

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment in Spl.S.C.No.14 of 2018, dated 09.02.2021 on the file of the learned Session Judge (Fast Track Magalir Neethimandram), Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.

2. The respondent police initially registered a case in Crime No.23 of 2017 against the appellant and yet another for the offence under Sections 7 and 8 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’ for the sake of convenience], subsequently altered into Section 10 of POCSO Act, which is punishable under Section 9(1) of POCSO Act. The appellant is shown as A1. After investigation, the respondent police laid a charge sheet before the Mazhila Court, Krishnagiri. The learned Special Judge taken the charge sheet on file in S.C.NO.14 of 2018. After completing the formalities, the learned trial Judge framed the charges against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Section 9(l) of POCSO Act, which is punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act and against this appellant, the learned trial Judge also framed the charges for the offence under Section 11 of POCSO Act, which is punishable under Section 12 of POCSO Act.

3. After framing charges, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, during trial, on the side of the prosecution as many as 19 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.19 and 48 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.48.

4. After completing the examination of the prosecution witnesses, incriminating circumstances were culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and put before the accused by questioning under section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appears on the side of the prosecution witnesses and the same was denied by the accused as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, one witness was examined as D.W.1 No document was produced.

5. On completion of trial, hearing the arguments advanced on either side, considering the materials, the trial court found that the second accused is not guilty. However, the trial Court found that the appellant is guilty for the offence under Section 7 of POCSO Act, which is punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act and convicted and sentenced to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.2500/- in default to undergo two months Rigorous Imprisonment. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the first accused has filed the present appeal before this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that no students had given any complaint against the appellant and no witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. All the witnesses had turned hostile and a false case has been foisted against the appellant. Though the learned trial Judge found not guilty of the second accused from the very same charges, he has wrongly convicted this appellant/A1 for the alleged offence. The school, in which the victims studied have not given any complaint and the Headmistress and other teachers have stated that there is no allegation of this nature were received from any of the students so far. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and there were a material contradiction between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.19 regarding the date of complaint and recording of statements. P.W.1 has categorically stated that she had given a complaint along with statements of victim girls on 01.11.2017, whereas the Investigating Officer, who was examined as P.W.19, has categorically stated that she received a complaint from P.W.1 only on 22.11.2017 and there was no reference about the receipt of state