JUDGMENT :

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused challenging the judgment dated 09.02.2023 in Spl.C.C.No.19 of 2019 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Namakkal, by which he was convicted for the offence under Sections 450 IPC and Section 5(m) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced him as follows:

2...........

(i) The case of the prosecution is that the accused and the victim child aged about 10 years were known to each other and residing in the same village; that on 07.04.2019 at about 4.00 p.m., when the parents of the victim child were out of station and when the victim child and her brother were alone in the house, the accused went to the house of the victim child, took her and her brother to the terrace of their house; that he sent the victim child’s brother to a shop and thereafter, committed penetrative sexual assault by first kissing the victim child, applying his mouth to the genital organ of the victim child and forcing his private part on the private part of the victim child and also ejaculated sperm on the victim child; and thus, committed the aforesaid offences.

(ii) The victim child had reported about the occurrence to her mother [PW3] who returned home at about 4.30 p.m. PW2, father of the victim child lodged a complaint [Ex.P2] and an FIR [Ex.P13] was registered by PW20, the Sub Inspector of Police against the accused for the offence under Sections 3, 4, 5(m) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act.

(iii) PW21 took up the investigation, subjected the victim child to medical examination, made arrangements for recording Section 164(5) Cr.P.C., statement and after examining all the witnesses, filed the final report against the accused for the offences under Sections 5(m) r/w 6 and Section 450 of the IPC, before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Namakkal.

(iv) 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.C.C.No.19 of 2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Namakkal. The trial Court framed two charges against the accused for the offences under Section 450 of the IPC and Section 5(m) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act. During the trial, when questioned, the accused pleaded 'not guilty'.

(v) Before the trial Court, the prosecution had examined 21 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.21 and marked 17 exhibits as Ex.P1 to Ex.P17, besides 5 Material objects [M.O.1 to M.O.5]. When the accused were 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.

(vi) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty of both the offences viz., Section 450 of the IPC and Section 5(m) r/w 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him as stated stated in paragraph No.1 of this judgment. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused had preferred the instant appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there are vital contradictions in the evidence of victim child [PW1] and her mother [PW3]; that the facts elicited from the cross examination of victim child [PW1] would suggest that the victim child is not a witness of sterling quality; that the victim child had admitted that there was prior enmity between the appellant and her family members with regard to a monetary dispute; that on the date of the occurrence, the appellant had asked for money from the victim child’s parents and there was an altercation, which led to a complaint to the police; that the medical evidence would show that there was no mark of violence and no injury in the genital area and therefore, would submit that the prosecution case is false and the case has been foisted by the respondent; and hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and pray