JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur, in Special S.C.No.8 of 2019 dated 15.10.2019.)

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur, made in Special S.C.No.8 of 2019 dated 15.10.2019.

2. The appellant police registered a case against the respondent/accused in Crime No.5 of 2018 for the offence under Sections 5(j)(ii), 5(l) and 5(n) punishable under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO Act’) and after completing the investigation, laid a charge sheet before the Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur. Since the offence alleged in this case was against a child, the learned Sessions Judge, after completing the formalities, framed the charges against the respondent for the offence under Sections 5(j)(ii), 5(l) and 5(n) punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act.

3. Before the trial Court, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, as many as 8 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and 14 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. Besides, 2 material objects were exhibited as M.O.1 and M.O.2. After completing the examination of the prosecution witnesses, incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, were put before the respondent by questioning under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., and he denied the same as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, one witness was examined as D.W.1 and two material objects were exhibited.

4. On completion of trial, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the material facts, the trial Court held that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt was extended in favour of the respondent/accused and therefore the respondent was found not guilty and acquitted him from the above said charged offences. Challenging the said judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur, the State has filed the present appeal before this Court.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), who is appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the respondent, however, the trial Court has completely ignored the evidence of the witnesses, viz, P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6. He would further submit that the trial Court did not appreciate the evidence of the prosecution, particularly the evidence of P.W.1/the victim child, who has spoken about the entire occurrence and the offence committed by the respondent and the same was corroborated by P.W.2 and P.W. 6.

6. P.W.1, who is the victim, categorically stated that the respondent has committed the penetrative sexual assault, but the same was ignored by the trial Court and the trial Court failed to invoke the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. The age of the victim child was 16 years at the time of the occurrence and she has narrated the entire facts which were corroborated by the medical evidence, scientific evidence and the report of DNA Test. Even in the previous statement of the victim girl recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, she has clearly mentioned the name of the respondent, however, the trial Court failed to appreciate the same. The trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W.5-Mahalakshmi, the Deputy Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chennai, who examined the fetus of victim and submitted DNA analysis report by fixing the accused as biological father of the fetus of the victim. The DNA Test report was marked as Ex.P.7 through P.W.5, which clearly shows that the responden