The main legal point established is the credibility of the victims' testimony and the societal responsibility to protect children from sexual exploitation under the POCSO Act.

JUDGMENT

R. Hemalatha, J.

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 05.01.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thanjavur, in S.C.No.18 of 2016, wherein the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 3 (a) r/w 5(m) r/w 6 (5 counts) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and sentenced as detailed below:

2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is as follows:

2.1. P.W-1 to P.W-4 and another girl child aged 3 years were all victims in this case of sexual assault. P.W-1 to P.W-4 are less than 9 years of age. Valarmathi (P.W-5) is the mother of P.W-1, P.W-2 and the child aged 3 years. Rani (P.W-7) is the mother of P.W-3 and Senthil Kumar(P.W-8) is the father of P.W-4. P.W-8 is also the brother of Valarmathi (P.W-5). P.W-1 and P.W-3 are girl children while P.W-2 and P.W-4 are boys. The child less than 3 years is also a girl baby.P.W-5, P.W-7 and P.W-8 are agricultural labourers and are residents of Northevankudikadu village, Thiruvaiyaru Taluk, Thanjavur District. On 23.10.2015, P.W-5, P.W-7 and P.W-8 as usual left for work leaving their children in their respective houses and the children were playing together. The appellant, Narayanan,who is the neighbour of Valarmathi (P.W-5) called P.W-1 and her little sister aged 3 years to his house and offered cakes. Thereafter, he forced himself upon both of them. They cried since they could not bear the pain and they were threatened by the appellant not to disclose anything to anyone. Thereafter, the children came home and were crying out of pain. On the same day, the appellant called P.W-4 to the upstairs of his house and did penetrative sexual assault by inserting his penis into the mouth of P.W-4.

2.2. Similarly, P.W-3 was also subjected to penetrative sexual assault. On the next day, ie., on 24.10.2015, the appellant called P.W-2 to his house and inserted his penis into his mouth. According to P.W-2, it was disgusting and made him to throw up. P.W-1 and her little sister were found weeping by P.W-5 and when she enquired P.W-1 as to why she is crying, P.W-1 informed her about the sexual assault committed by the appellant.

2.3. P.W-3 and P.W-4 also informed their respective parents about the penetrative sexual assault committed by the appellant.

2.4. On 29.10.2015 P.W-5 took P.W-1 and her little daughter aged 3 years to a Private hospital for medical treatment. They also informed the son of the appellant about the crime committed by his father expecting him to chide his father. Since no action was taken by him, P.W-5, P.W-7, P.W-8 and P.W-9 approached the elders of the village. Since the elders stated that they cannot ask such 'delicate things' to the appellant, P.W-2 took P.W-1 and the child aged 3 years to Thanjavur Raja Mirasudar Government Hospital, where Dr.Uma Brinda (P.W-9) examined the children. She found no external injuries on both the children. The children also informed the doctor that they had washed their genitals several times. Thereafter, P.W-9 gave intimation to the police and sought for opinion of a Gynecologist. The Accident Register for both the children were marked as Ex.P6 and Ex.P7.

2.5. P.W-5 thereafter went to Ta