The court established that the prosecution failed to prove any charges due to lack of corroborative evidence, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.

JUDGMENT :

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

1. This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in Spl.S.C.No.362 of 2023, dated 06.11.2024, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge (Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act), Dindigul, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 366 of I.P.C and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 2019 (in short hereinafter referred to as 'the POCSO Act, 2019')

2.The case of the prosecution is that the victim minor girl belongs to Natham, Dindigul District. The accused belongs to Ramanathapuram. While she was studying 10^th standard in the Government Higher Secondary School at Natham, she had acquaintance with the appellant through cell phone by way of instagram. Thereafter, they fell in love with each other. The parents of the victim girl came to know about the love affair and they warned the victim and due to which, the victim girl called the accused through her cell phone to come to Natham to marry her. On 12.04.2023, the minor victim girl eloped with the appellant and went to Kerala where the appellant married the minor victim girl and stayed there in a room. While they were staying in the private hotel, the appellant had committed penetrative sexual assault on the minor victim girl. Thereafter on 14.04.2023, they returned to Thanjavur, where they stayed in the appellant's sister's house. Thereafter, the parents of the minor victim girl lodged complaint and after knowing the same, they themselves came to Natham.

3.On the complaint, the respondent registered the F.I.R in Crime No.162 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Section 366 of I.P.C and 5(L) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. After completion of the investigation, a final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the Trial Court.

4.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.18 and marked Exs.P1 to P19. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were produced before the Trial Court.

5.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Section 366 of I.P.C and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. He was sentenced to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment for the offence punishable under of I.P.C. He was also sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default, to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment for the offence punishable under of the POCSO Act. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the present Criminal Appeal.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that all the witnesses turned hostile, including the victim girl. No one supported the case of the prosecution. The medical evidence also did not support the prosecution's claim regarding penetrative sexual assault. The doctor who examined the minor victim girl deposed as P.W.14. The doctor stated that no injury was found on the body of the victim girl during the examination and did not give any opinion that she had been subjected to penetrative sexual assault.

7.While recording the Accident Register, the victim girl categorically stated that she had eloped with the appellant on her own and that nothing had happened at the hands of the appellant. In fact, the prosecution failed to prove the complaint itself, marked as Ex.P.1, which was lodged by the mother of the victim girl, who deposed as P.W.1. She admitted that Ex.P.1 was written by one Ismail, who was not exa