The conviction under the POCSO Act was overturned due to insufficient corroborative evidence and inconsistencies in the victim's testimony, leading to the appellant's acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

M.Nirmal Kumar, J.

This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the POCSO Act, Chennai, in Spl.S.C.No.195 of 2022, dated 31.10.2023.

2. On conclusion of trial in Spl.S.C.No.195 of 2022, the learned trial Judge found the appellant guilty and convicted him for the offence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereinafter referred to as ''the POCSO Act''] and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment.

3. The facts of the case is that, the appellant was tried along with one Bhuvaneswari (A2), the mother of the victim girl. The learned trial Judge found A2 guilty for the offence under Section 6 read with Section 17 @ 21(1) of the POCSO Act and convicted and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for four months and the period of detention already undergone has been set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

3.1. The victim, P.W.2, who was born on 15.09.2004, was a minor at the time of the incident. She had been living with her mother (A2) since her father separated from the family, taking the victim's brother with him. The appellant, an auto driver, came into contact with the victim's family when he began providing transportation. Later, he informed the victim's mother that he had divorced his wife, and the appellant and A2 began living together with the victim girl.

3.2. Taking advantage of the mother's absence, the appellant forcibly committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim girl. This abuse continued, and the victim later became pregnant. She gave birth to a male child at home, and when complications arose with the umbilical cord, the victim sought medical treatment. This led to the involvement of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) and the Police, bringing the crime to light.

3.3. Following medical treatment, the Primary Health Centre staff, Nammalwarpet reported the case to the CWC after discovering the victim's pregnancy and minor status. The CWC informed the Police, and thereafter, the case was registered in Crime No.11 of 2022 against the accused for the offences under Sections 5(j)(ii), 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act.

3.4. During the investigation, the victim's statement was recorded. Subsequently, the victim was produced before a doctor and a Magistrate, where her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded. After recording statements from the witnesses and collecting the materials, the accused were arrested. A charge sheet was filed before the trial Court, listing 14 witnesses. During the trial, P.W.1 to P.W.9 were examined, and Exhibits P.1 to P.11 were marked.

3.5. Upon completion of the trial, the trial Court convicted the appellant (A1) under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The second accused (A2) was convicted under Section 6 read with Section 17 @ 21 (1) of the POCSO Act. Since A2 had already served the sentence, no appeal was filed by her. However, the appellant / A1 has preferred the present appeal, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the trial Court's finding is contrary to both the law and the weight of the evidence. The learned counsel submits that the trial Court failed to properly consider the statement made by the victim, P.W.2, who categorically stated that she and the appellant had got married, and that a male child was born out of their relationship. According to P.W.2, she and the appellant were living together as husband and wife. P.W.2 further stated that their baby developed an infection in the umbilical cord, and the baby was taken to the Public Health Centre for treatment. From there, information was sent to the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), which, according to the learned counsel, did not conduct a proper enquiry and rushed into action by lodging a complaint. T