The conviction for aggravated penetrative sexual assault was upheld due to credible testimony and DNA evidence, emphasizing that delays in reporting such crimes are often immaterial.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

1. This appeal has been filed as against the Judgment passed in Spl. S.C.No.13/2022, dated 30.09.2022, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karur, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 449 and 506 Part I of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, the minor victim girl was aged about 15 years. She was studying 11^th standard and the accused is being a neighbour of the victim girl aged about 37 years. When the parents of the victim girl went out, during the month of March 2021, the accused came to her house and committed the offence of penetrative sexual assault. The accused also continued to do the same, while the victim girl was alone at her house during Covid-19 lock-down. Thereafter, the victim became pregnant and suffered from stomach pain. Thereafter, the victim girl disclosed the offence committed by the accused and lodged a complaint.

3. On the basis of the complaint, the respondent registered an F.I.R in Crime No.10 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 5 (l), 5(j)(ii), 6 of POCSO Act and 506 Part I of IPC . After completion of investigation, the respondent filed a final report. On receipt of the same, the trial Court had taken cognizance and framed the charges as against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 449 of , 6 of POCSO Act and 506 Part I of .

4. On the side of the prosecution, in order to bring the charges to home, they examined P.W.1 to P.W.9 and Exs.P1 to P18 were marked. The prosecution also produced Material Object M.O.1. On the side of the accused, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and no document was marked.

5. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 449 , 506 Part I of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. He was sentenced to undergo 10 years imprisonment and was imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment for an offence punishable under Section 449 of . He was further sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and was imposed a fine of Rs.1000/- in default, to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act. He was also sentenced to undergo two years imprisonment and was imposed a fine of Rs.1000/- in default, to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 506 Part I of . Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution failed to mention the date of the alleged occurrence, and that there was a huge delay in lodging the complaint, which was not properly explained. It is a fatal to the case of the prosecution. The doctor, who examined the victim girl, did not depose before the Court and as a result, the medical evidence failed to support the case of the prosecution in proving the charge under the POCSO Act. Additionally, the prosecution did not establish the victim's age in accordance with the law. Despite the fact that the DNA analysis report is not a conclusive piece of evidence to prove the allegation of sexual assault, the trial court mechanically convicted the accused. Therefore, the entire conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant cannot be sustained and must be set aside.

7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submits that the accused had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim gir