The prosecution's failure to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, coupled with significant delays and contradictions, leads to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in Spl.S.C.No.31 of 2022 dated 16.08.2023, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge (Full Additional Charge), Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 6 (1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 2019 (in short hereinafter referred to as “the POCSO Act, 2019”) and Section 506 (PART I) of I.P.C.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused is the father of the victim child, who is aged about 14 years. The accused was married to the complainant and they had a female child born on 15.05.2007 and another female child and male child. When the complainant used to visit her mother at Aranthangi, the victim girl was left alone at home. During this time, the accused, with sexual intent, had removed the victim's dress and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her over a period of three years. He also allegedly threatened the victim with dire consequences stating that if she revealed the matter to anyone, he would strangulate her.

3.It is further stated that in April 2021, the victim girl informed her mother about the sexual offences committed by the appellant. When the wife of the appellant inquired about the same, the appellant assaulted her and uttered obscene words. Further, the accused allegedly failed to hand over six sovereigns of a gold chain to the complainant, thereby committing criminal breach of trust. Therefore, the complainant lodged a complaint and the same has been registered in Crime No.2 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 406 and 506 (PART I) of I.P.C and Section 5(n) read with 6(l) and Section 5(l) read with 6(1) of POCSO Act, 2019.

4.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.9 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. On the side of the accused, one Podumponnu was examined as D.W.1 and marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3.

5.On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 6 (1) of the POCSO Act, 2019 and 506(PART I) of I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 6 (1) of the POCSO (Amendment) Act, 2019 and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year. Further, he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 506 (PART I) of I.P.C and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the complaint did not mention the time or date of the alleged occurrence and that the entire allegations were bald and vague. There was a delay of three years in lodging the complaint, which the prosecution had failed to explain. In fact, the complaint initially did not allege that the appellant had committed penetrative sexual assault. Accordingly, the respondent initially registered the F.I.R for the offences punishable under Sections 9(n) and 10 of the POCSO Act. It was also submitted that the wife of the appellant had separated and was living separately and the appellant had filed a petition for divorce in I.D.O.P.No.38 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukkottai.

7.According to the appellant, even though the victim girl allegedly informed her mother about the alleged offence committed by the appellant, the w