JUDGMENT :

This Criminal appeal is filed by the de facto complainant against the judgment of acquittal dated 28.03.2019 passed in Spl.S.C.No.27 of 2017 by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Needhimandram, Tiruvallur District.

2. The first respondent police registered a case against the 3rd respondent/accused herein in Crime No.5 of 2016 for the offence under Section 354 (A) of IPC and Sections 9 (f), 9(m), 9(k) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [ hereinafter referred to as the 'POCSO Act' for the sake of convenience]. After completing the investigation, they have filed a charge sheet before the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruvallur, since the offence is against a girl child. After completing the formalities, the learned Sessions Judge taken the case on file in Spl.S.C.No.27 of 2017 and charges were framed against the 3rd respondent for the offence under Sections 342, 354(A)(1)(i), 376 (1) (f) (i) IPC and Section 5 (m) punishable under Section 6, 7 punishable under Section 8, 9(f), (k) and (m) punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.

3. In order to prove the case of the prosecution before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution as many as 17 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.17 and 10 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.10 and no material object was produced. After examining the prosecution witnesses when incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were put before the accused through questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, he denied all the incriminating circumstances as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was produced.

4. The Court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the materials available on record, found the 3rd respondent not guilty for the all charged offences and acquitted him under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. Challenging the said Judgment of acquittal, the appellant, who is the de-facto complainant has filed the present appeal before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant/defacto complainant would submit that at the time of occurrence, the victim was only 11 years and she is a mentally retarded and physically challenged (deaf and dumb) child and she was studying fifth standard in the Panchayat Union Primary School, Kanniyampalayam, in which, the 3rd respondent/accused was working as a Teacher. On 20.10.2016 around 15.00 hours, while the students were permitted to go for playing, the victim being a physically challenged, stayed alone in the class room. The accused took advantage of the loneliness of the victim child and had committed sexual assault on her. On the next day, when the mother of the victim sent her to school, the victim nodded her head and refused to go to school and started weeping and that she asked the victim girl by sign language, she showed her breast and also the private part. The same was informed to her father when he returned from his job. Immediately, he went to the school and enquired about the said incident committed by 3rd respondent/accused, who was the teacher in the school.

6. The learned counsel would further submit that in the present case, the victim girl conveyed the said incident by way of sign language to her mother, who in turn, informed the same to her husband and he made a complaint before the respondent police. After registration of the complaint, the victim and her mother were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate for recording statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Since the victim is a deaf and dumb and also a physically challenged child and she was not in a position to give any verbal answer, her mother's/P.W.3 statement was under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Before the learned Magistrate, the victim child and her mother have clearly conveyed the said incident that the accused who is a Teacher in the said school touched private parts of the vict