JUDGMENT :

P. VELMURUGAN, J.

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the judgment passed in S.C.No. 340 of 2017 dated 25.04.2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court/Special Court for Cases under POCSO Act/Children's Court, Chennai.

1. Aggrieved over the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge under POCSO Act dated 25.04.2019 in S.C.No. 340 of 2017.

2. Originally, the appellant/Police has registered a case against the respondent in Crime No. 2 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereinafter called as “POCSO Act”] and Section 506(ii) of IPC. After investigation, they laid a charge sheet against the respondent before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court/Special Court for Cases Under the POCSO Act/Children's Court, Chennai, since the offence charged against the respondent was against woman, especially a child falls under the POCSO Act. The learned Sessions Judge, had taken cognizance of the charge sheet in S.C.No. 340 of 2017 and framed the charge against the respondent.

3. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 8 witnesses were examined as PWs. 1 to 8 and marked 12 documents as Exs.P1 to 12. After completion of examination of prosecution witnesses, when incriminating circumstances culled 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, no one was examined and no document was marked.

4. After completing trial and hearing of arguments advanced on either side, the learned Special Judge found not guilty of the respondent for any of the charges framed against him and thereby, acquitted him. Challenging the said judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, the State has filed this appeal.

5. Mr.S.Sugendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant/State would submit that the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondent on the main ground that the evidence of PWs. 2 & 3 parents of the victim child, PW-1 the victim child are not consistent, cogent and trustworthy and there are lot of contradictions and came to the conclusion that based on their evidence conviction cannot be recorded against the respondent/accused and prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The finding of the trial Court is completely erroneous and that, in cases of aggravated sexual assault on a child, who was aged about only 3 years, sole evidence of the victim would suffice to record conviction, if it is trustworthy.

6. The learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and wrongly applied the provisions of law and erroneously acquitted the respondent stating that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. The victim girl was produced before the learned Magistrate for recording statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. at the time of occurrence, the victim girl was only aged about 3 years and she has clearly narrated the sexual assault committed by the respondent/accused, which clearly proves that the respondent/accused has committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the child, who was only aged about 3 years at the time of occurrence.

7. As far as appreciation of the evidence of prosecution witnesses is concerned, the trial Court held that the evidence of PWs. 2 & 3 cannot be relied on for the reason that the same is not consistent, cogent and trustworthy and the victim child was tutored, as there was no corroboration of the fact, but it is seen that the trial Court has miserably failed to appreciate the fact that the corroboration is not always required if there are circumstances to dispense with such requirement.

8. The learned Public Prosecutor would further submit that PW-1 has clearly narrated the incident to her gr