JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed to call for the records relating to the judgment dated 22.06.2016 passed in Spl.C.C.No.7 of 2015 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Mahila Court), Coimbatore and setaside the same.

2. The respondent police registered a case against the appellant in Crime No.30 of 2014 for the offence under section 7 and 8 of POCSO Act. After investigation, laid a charge sheet before the Special Court, since the offence is against woman especially, the child under the definition of POCSO Act. The learned Special Judge taken the charge sheet on file in Spl.C.C.No.7 of 2015. After completing the formalities, framed the charge against the appellant for the offence under section 5(m) of POCSO Act, which is punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act. During trial, in order to substantiate the charge, on the side of the prosecution, totally 12 witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 12. 15 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P15. Besides, four material objects were also exhibited as M.O.Nos.1 to 4. On completion of the examination of the prosecution witnesses, incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses put before the accused by questioning under section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the same as untrue and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was produced.

3. On completion of trial and hearing the arguments advanced on either side and considering the materials placed before the trial court, found the appellant guilty for the offence under section 5(m) of POCSO Act, which is punishable under section 6 of POCSO Act and convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused has filed the present appeal before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that P.W.1 is the mother of the victim girl. The victim girl was examined as P.W.2. She is aged about only six years and she does not know anything. Due to previous enmity, the mother of the victim girl tutored the victim girl and based on the same, lodged a false complaint against the appellant. The respondent police failed to conduct fair investigation and believed the false case of the complainant, filed a charge sheet against the appellant. Even P.Ws.1 to 4 are the neighbors of the appellant. The appellant has vacant land and they used the same as toilet and also used to take fire wood, the appellant warned and prevented them from doing so. Therefore, they foisted a false case against the appellant by setting up the victim girl. Unfortunately, the prosecution also failed to conduct proper investigation and laid a charge sheet against the appellant and even the medical evidence did not support the case of the prosecution, since there was no symptom of penetrative sexual assault. Even injury sustained by the victim girl, according to the doctor, there is a possibility of sustaining such injury, due to hit against any hard object. The trial court failed to appreciate the evidence that the victim girl is aged about only 6 years and she is not in a position to say anything and the family members of the victim tutored her. She gave statement before the Judicial Magistrate. Subsequently, as tutored by P.W.1, mother of the victim girl, gave evidence before the court and there is no eye witness and corroborating evidence in this case. Medical evidence is also not corroborating with the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the other eye witnesses. Therefore, the trial court failed to appreciate the entire evidence in toto and simply based on the evidence of the victim girl and without any corroborating evidence, convicted the appellant, which warrant interference of this Court.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent would