In sexual offence cases, the sole testimony of a victim must be corroborated; delays and inconsistencies can create reasonable doubt leading to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the accused, challenging the judgment dated 11.08.2023 in Spl.SC.No.82 of 2020 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court (POCSO Cases), Tiruvannamalai, by which he was convicted for the offence under Section 354 (A) of IPC, Section 8 r/w 7 of POCSO Act, 2012, Section 451 of & Section 10 r/w 9(l) of and Section 506 (i) of the and sentenced as follows :

2.(i) The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was the landlord of the premises in which the victim aged about 13 years and her mother were staying as tenants; that on 12.06.2020 at about 10.30 a.m., when the victim was playing on the terrace, the appellant had committed sexual assault by inappropriately touching the breast and the hip of the victim, and thus, committed the aforesaid offences.

(ii) On the complaint [Ex.P1] given by the mother of the victim [PW1] on 16.06.2020 against the accused an FIR [Ex.P7] in Cr.No.14 of 2020 was registered by PW10, the Inspector of Police, who conducted the investigation. After making arrangements for recording Section 164 (5) Cr.P.C., statement of the victim and after examining the other witnesses had filed the final report against the appellant for the offence under Sections 354A, 451, 506(i) of IPC and Section 8 r/w 7, 10 r/w 9(1) of POCSO Act, 2012 before the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court (POCSO Cases), Tiruvannamalai.

(iii) On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., were complied with and the case was taken on file as Spl.S.C.No.82 of 2020 by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court (POCSO Cases), Tiruvannamalai. The trial Court framed three charges against the accused. The first charge was under Section 354 (A) of IPC and Section 8 r/w 7 of POCSO Act, 2012 . The second charge was under Section 451 of & Section 10 r/w 9(l) of and the third charge was under Section 506 (i) of the . During the trial, when questioned, the accused pleaded 'not guilty'.

(iv) Before the trial Court, the prosecution had examined 10 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.10 and marked 12 exhibits as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12. When the accused was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. The accused neither examined any witness nor marked any document on his side.

(v) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty of all the offences and convicted and sentenced him as stated in paragraph No.1 of this judgment. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused had preferred the instant appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that the victim’s mother had not paid rent for the premises and therefore, the appellant had asked the victim to vacate the premises; that in order to wreak vengeance on the appellant, the complaint has been foisted; that independent witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution i.e., PW4, PW5 and PW6, turned hostile; that the complaint was lodged belatedly