Inconsistent testimonies and unexplained delays in filing complaints undermine the credibility of charges in sexual assault cases.

JUDGMENT :

The appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 25.04.2022 in Special Session Case No.9 of 2020 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur District.

2. The appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 354A (2) of I.P.C and was sentenced as follows;

3. It is the case of the prosecution that the victim/PW1, aged 13 years and studying in 7^th standard was at home on 05.01.2020 due to the school holiday. At about 05.00 pm, when the victim's mother/PW2 returned from the field in the backyard, PW1 informed her that she was going to pick up the slippers she had left behind in the field. The victim returned home crying and when PW3, her aunt enquired her about the reason for crying, the victim informed that she had fallen down. At that time, since PW3 saw the accused running away from that place, she informed PW2 to enquire about the same. Upon being enquired by PW2, the victim informed that while she was picking up her slippers and returning home, the accused pulled her hands, misbehaved and committed sexual assault as he hugged and kissed her. When PW1 wriggled out and ran away, the accused threatened that he would kill her if she disclosed the incident to anyone. PW2 lodged the compliant Ex.P1 before the Vikramangalam Police Station on 07.01.2020. Upon receipt of Ex.P1, the Inspector of Police/PW12 registered FIR/Ex.P9 in Crime No.4 of 2020 for offences under Sections 354A (1)(i), 506(ii) of I.P.C r/w Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

4. PW12 took up the investigation and on visiting the spot prepared the Observation Mahazar/Ex.P2 in the presence of PW6 and prepared the rough plan/Ex.P10. The accused was arrested and his confession statement was recorded in the presence of PW9 and PW10. The victim was examined by the Doctor/PW8 who issued Accident Register/Ex.P4. Statement of PW1 under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C. was recorded before the Judicial Magistrate on 24.02.2020. After completion of the investigation, PW12 filed the final report.

5. The trial Court took up the case, issued summons, complied with Section 207 of Cr.P.C and framed the charges under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, Section 354A (2) and 506(ii) of I.P.C. When questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty and stood trial.

6. To prove the charges, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW13 and marked Exhibits P1 to P10. The statement of the victim under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C. was also marked as Ex.C1. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., about the incriminating materials available, he denied the charges. On the side of the accused, two witnesses, DW1 and DW2 were examined and Exhibits D1 and D2 were marked.

7. After considering the evidences and arguments, the trial court held that the charges were proved, convicted and sentenced the accused as detailed above. However the accused was acquitted for the charges under Section 506(ii) of I.P.C. Assailing the conviction and sentence imposed, the accused has preferred the above appeal.

8. Mr S.Shanmugavelayutham, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the case has been foisted against the accused by implicating him under the POCSO Act only to settle score that arose in a political fight. There was an election for local body in which both groups supported the rival candidate. Since the accused did not support the candidate of the complainant's supporter, he lost. Due to which, the complainant's family and their relativ