JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment of acquittal, dated 16.01.2018, passed by the learned Special Judge (Principal Sessions Judge), Puducherry, in Spl.S.C.No.16 of 2016 on the file of the Special Court under POCSO Act, 2012, Puducherry.

2. The appellant Police have registered a case against the respondent/accused in Crime No.27 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 9(o) and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act” for brevity). After completing the investigation, they laid a charge-sheet before the Special Court under POCSO Act, 2012, Puducherry. Since the offence is against a child, the learned Special Judge has taken the charge-sheet on file in Spl.S.C.No.16 of 2016.

3. After completing the formalities, the trial Court framed a charge punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act against the respondent/accused.

4. After trial, the learned Special Judge found that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the respondent/accused and acquitted the respondent/accused. Now, the State has filed the present appeal before this Court, challenging the judgment of acquittal.

5. Mr. D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, learned Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry) appearing for the appellant, would submit that the learned Special Judge acquitted the respondent/accused on the ground that there is a doubt about the place of occurrence, and has acquitted the accused largely on the sole factor of place of occurrence, whereas, in the FIR itself, the victim girl has categorically stated that she was also in love with the respondent and the respondent had called her at 08.30 a.m. in the morning on 03.03.2016 and kissed her on the cheek, and thereafter, the respondent called her to his room and committed other acts of sexual assault. The victim girl (P.W.2) has substantiated the same during her evidence before the trial Court by stating that the respondent/accused committed the acts of sexual assault in the 8th Std. classroom, and therefore learned Public Prosecutor would submit that, on a plain reading of the material evidence on record, there is absolutely no material discrepancy about the place of occurrence, and hence, the finding of the trial Court that there is a reasonable doubt about the place of occurrence is perverse.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor would further submit that the prosecution is very clear that the victim girl (P.W.2) has got acquaintance with the accused, who was working as a MTS Worker in the school, where the victim girl was also studying, and initially after talking in person, they started taking through Mobile Phones and the victim girl used her mother's Mobile Phone to send messages to the respondent. The respondent/accused had also sent a SMS/message about his love to the victim girl, and therefore, in the natural course of things, the respondent had called the victim girl and the occurrence has happened.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor would further submit that the victim girl (P.W.2) has clearly deposed that the prayer in the School starts only at 09.00 a.m., and therefore, the School will only be sparsely populated at 08.30 a.m., and therefore, the respondent had chosen the said time to commit the offence. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that, though the victim girl (P.W.2) has admitted in her evidence that the students will come at 08.30 a.m., it is common knowledge that only one or two students will normally arrive early to the School, and that does not mean that the entire classroom will be full, and in any event, the same has not been established by the respondent/accused by way of cross-examination. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no discrepancy about the presence of Monisha, the friend of the victim girl, as the victim girl (P.W.2) has clearly stated that nobody was present at the time of occurrence. The victim girl (P.W.2) has deposed consistently about the occurrence, viz., originally in the complaint, and thereafter,