JUDGMENT :

P. VELMURUGAN, J.

1. The criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and consequential sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem, in S.C. No. 42 of 2016, dated 08.03.2019.

2. The respondent police registered a case in Cr. No. 396 of 2013 against the appellant for the offence under Sections 9(f) punishable under Section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short “the POCSO Act”). After completing investigation, the respondent police laid a charge-sheet before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem, which was taken on file in Spl. S.C. No. 42 of 2016. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both the accused and the prosecution and after perusing the records, since there is prima-facie case, framed charges against the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 9(f) punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.

3. Before the trial Court, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, as many as 13 witnesses were examined as PWs. 1 to 13 and Exs.P1 to P11 were marked and no material object was exhibited. After completing examination of prosecution witnesses, when incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses were put before the accused by questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he denied the same as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, DW-1 and DW-2 were examined and no document was marked.

4. The learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem, after trial and hearing arguments advanced on either side, by judgment dated 08.03.2019 convicted the appellant/accused and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and the fine amount of Rs. 25,000/- was ordered to be compensation for the victim girl. Aggrieved against the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred this criminal appeal.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would submit that there is no substantial material to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 9(f) punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The appellant, being a paster of the CSI Church, is nothing to do with the management of the C.S.I. Hobert Girls Higher Secondary School, where the victim girl was studied. At the time of alleged occurrence, the appellant was not in the residence, where the alleged occurrence said to have taken place and to prove the same, he examined his wife as DW-1 and son as DW-2, who have clearly stated that they were not in Salem on the date of alleged occurrence and they have also clearly spoken about enmity with regard to the Church Election. Therefore, the alleged occurrence could not have taken place as projected by the prosecution.

5.1 The learned counsel further contended that the victim girl was not subjected to medical examination and the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution and the prosecution has failed to comply with the Section 24 to 27 of the POCSO Act. The trial Court erred in not appreciating the fact that the prosecution has miserably failed to comply with Sections 24 to 27 of the POCSO Act. It is settled proposition of law that prosecution should prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and there is presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act, which is rebuttable. When prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt thereafter only the onus will shift on the accused and the accused can establish his defence by preponderance of probabilities. In this case, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the appellant/accused has examined DW-1 and DW-2 to establish his defence. Further, the accused, in the proceedings under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has clearly denied the allegations and stated about the enmity with regard to the Church Election. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence l