JUDGMENT :

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

1. The criminal appeal challenges the judgment dated 20.03.2023 passed in Spl.S.C.No.103 of 2022 by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court of Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused as follows:

2........... 

(a) The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was the land owner of the premises in which the victim’s parents were tenants; that the victim was aged about six years at the time of occurrence; that on 24.02.2022, at about 8.30 pm, the appellant called the victim lured her to his house and took her to the bed room and he removed the victim’s dress and applied his mouth on the private part of the victim which had caused irritation to the victim. Thereafter, the appellant is said to have threatened the victim with dire consequences, if she discloses the occurrence to any other person.

(b) It is further the case of the prosecution that the victim’s brother, P.W.4, went in search of the victim, he found that the victim and the appellant came out of the room and he found the victim’s dress was distorted and when he enquired, the victim, she did not reveal anything; that thereafter, they informed P.W.2, the mother of the victim who in turn informed P.W.1, the father of the victim P.W.1 lodged the complaint which is marked as Ex.P.3 before the respondent which was registered by P.W.7, who thereafter, conducted the investigation. P.W.7 made arrangements for recording the Section 164(5) Cr.P.C. statement of the victim and sent the victim for medical examination and after examination of all other witnesses filed the final report against the appellant for the offences u/s.366, 354B, 376AB, 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5(m) r/w. Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short POCSO Act, 2012).

(c) On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., were complied with and the case was taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.103 of 2022 by the Sessions Judge, Special Court of Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, for trial. The trial Court had framed three charges for the offences under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Sections 366 and 506(ii) of IPC, 1860 and when questioned, the accused pleaded ‘not guilty’.

(d) To prove its case, the prosecution had examined 7 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.7 and marked 10 exhibits as Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.10. When the accused was questioned, u/s.313 of 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.

(e) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Hence, the accused has preferred the instant appeal challenging the said conviction and sentence.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the victim was hardly aged six years, at the time of occurrence; that her evidence is the result of tutoring; that the appellant had asked P.W.1 to vacate the house since he was frequently quarrelling with his wife in an inebriated condition owing to matrimonial differences with his wife; that the medical evidence does not corroborate the version of the victim; that the complaint was lodged three days after the alleged occurrence; that the conviction is based solely on testimony of the victim, which does not inspire confidence due to material inconsistencies in her deposition and hence, prayed that the impugned judgment may be set aside.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police, per contra, submitted that the victim was aged six years at the time of occurrence; that her evidence is corroborated by P.W.4, the brother of the victim; that the motive for false prosecution suggested by the defence cannot be accepted, as there is no reason for the victim to depose falsely against the appellant; that the minor contributions in