JUDGMENT :

P. VELMURUGAN, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment made in Special S.C. No. 18 of 2016 on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur dated 08.02.2019.

2. The respondent police registered a case against the appellant in Crime No. 04/2016 for the offence under Section 5(m) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act] and Section 506(1) IPC. Since offence is against child, subsequently, it was altered into Section 366(A) IPC, Section 5(m) of POCSO Act and Section 506(1) of IPC. After completing investigation, the respondent police laid charge sheet before the Mahila Court, Perambalur. The learned Special Judge taken the charge sheet on file in Spl. S.C. No. 18 of 2016. After completing the formalities, Special court framed charges against the appellant for the offence under Sections 366 and 506(1) IPC and under Section 5(m) of POCSO Act.

3. After framing charges, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, during the trial, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 20 witnesses were examined as PW-1 to PW-20. 20 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20. Besides six material objects were exhibited as M.O.1 to M.O.6. After completing the examination of prosecution witnesses, incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were put before the appellant by questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the same as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of defence, 5 witnesses were examined and 2 documents were marked.

4. On completion of trial, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the materials available on record, the trial court found the appellant guilty for the following offences and passed the judgment of conviction and sentence as follows:

(i) For offence under Section 366 IPC, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, to undergo two years simple imprisonment.

(ii) For offence under Section 506(1) IPC, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment.

(iii) For offence under Section 5(m) read with 6 of POCSO Act, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo 15 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of 5,000/- in default, to undergo 3 years simple imprisonment.

5. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused has filed the present appeal before this court.

6.1. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place on 06.05.2016 at about 16.30 hours, whereas the complaint was given only at 22.00 hours and on the same day with an inordinate delay of 6 hours. The above facts would go to show that the complaint was given after much discussion and deliberation. After registering the case, the respondent police has not sent express FIR to the court immediately after registering the case. FIR was sent to the court after 16 hours delay and there is no explanation. Therefore, delay in filing the case and delay in registering the FIR and delay in sending the FIR to the court is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The trial Judge failed to consider the same.

6.2. Further, he would submit that the evidence on the side of the defence DW-1 to DW-5 named another person who is responsible for the occurrence. The trial court failed to take note of the same and mechanically convicted the appellant. The victim girl was examined as PW-2. She stated that she was playing with one Selvakumar brother of the victim. The said Selvakumar was not examined. Non-examination of the said Selvakumar is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The occurrence was informed to PW-4 who in turn informed to Village Administrative Officer PW-5. There are material contradictions between the prosec