The main legal point established is the reliance on victim testimony, witness corroboration, and medical examination to establish guilt under the POCSO Act, and the requirement of sufficient evidence to support convictions under relevant sections of the law.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgment dated 13.03.2015 passed in Special S.C.No.7 of 2014 on the file of Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) Erode and acquit the appellant / accused from the offence charged.)

R. Sakthivel, J.

1. The appellant is the sole accused in Spl.S.C.No.7 of 2014 on the file of the learned District Judge, Sessions Court, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode. He stood charged for offences under Section 370 (4) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) [hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for the sake of brevity]. and Section 4 read with 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “POCSO Act” for the sake of brevity). By judgment dated 13.03.2015, the trial Court convicted him under all the charges and sentenced him to undergo Imprisonment for Life with a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo six months simple imprisonment under Section 370(4) of IPC; and to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo six months simple imprisonment under Section 4 read with 18 of POCSO Act. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this Appeal before this Court.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

2.1. P.W.2 is the victim in this case. At the time of occurrence, she was studying 8th Standard. PW1 is the mother of the victim. The accused/ appellant and PW1 along with her family are residing in the same street. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.09.2014 at about 08.30 pm, the victim was returning by walk from the house of her maternal aunt (Mother''s sister) which is in the same locality. The accused/appellant had encountered and offered her that he will drop her at her house and asked her to get on his bicycle and took her along with him to the house of one XX (Identity hidden). Then the accused asked the victim to come inside the house (Aasaram) of XX. Then, with an intention to have sexual intercourse with her, the accused tried to disrobe the victim and thereby, committed the offences under Section 370 (4) of IPC and Section 4 read with 18 of POCSO Act. Thereafer, PW1 - mother of the victim went to Anthiyur Police Station and preferred a complaint on 10.09.2014 at 07.00 a.m. PW12 the then Inspector of Police on receipt of the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No.249 of 2014 initially under Section 7 read with 8 of POCSO Act and after investigation, it was altered into Section 370 (4) of IPC and Section 4 read with 18 of POCSO Act and filed charge sheet accordingly on 19.09.2014.

2.2. The trial court framed charges under section 370 (4) of IPC and section 4 read with 18 of the POCSO Act. Since the appellant accused denied the charges framed against him, trial was ordered. With a view to prove the charges, the Prosecution has examined PW1 to PW12 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 were marked. No material objects were marked on either side. No defense witnesses and documents were adduced on the side of the accused. After hearing both sides, the trial court found that the accused is guilty under section 370 (4) of IPC and Section 4 read with 18 of POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo six months simple imprisonment under Section 370 (4) IPC; and to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo six months simple imprisonment under Section 4 read with 18 of POCSO Act.

3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court, the accused has filed this criminal appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant / accused argued that the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidences available on record, that the accused sustained head