JUDGMENT

The criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 04.04.2022 made in Spl.C.C.No.16 of 2020 by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive trial of Cases under the POCSO Act, Coimbatore.

2 The respondent police registered a case in Cr.No.20 of 2019 against the appellant for the offence under Section 9(m) punishable under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short “POCSO Act”) (3 counts) and Section 506(i) (3 counts) IPC. After completing investigation, the respondent police laid a charge sheet before the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive trial of Cases under the POCSO Act, Coimbatore, which was taken on file in Spl.C.C.No.16 of 2020. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both the accused and the prosecution and after perusing the records, since there is prima facie case, framed charges against the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 9(m) punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act (3 counts) and Section

506(i) (3 counts) IPC.

3 Before the trial Court, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, as many as 14 witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 14 and Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. After completing examination of prosecution witnesses, when incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses were put before the accused by questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, D.W.1 wife of the appellant was examined and no document was marked. Two Court documents were marked as Ex.C1 and Ex.C2.

4 The learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive trial of Cases under the POCSO Act, Coimbatore, on completion of trial and hearing arguments advanced on either side, by judgment dated 04.04.2022 convicted the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 9(m) (3 counts) punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and Section 506(i) (3 counts) of IPC and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each count, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year for each default for the offence under Section 9(m) punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for each count, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month for each default for the offence under Section 506(i) IPC and ordered both the sentences to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred the present criminal appeal before this Court.

5 The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would submit that there is a contradiction in the evidence of P.W.4 regarding the date of filing the complaint. P.Ws.1 to 3 have stated that near the house of the appellant there were around 15-20 persons doing agricultural work, but, no independent witness was examined by the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of the P.Ws.1 to 3 and prosecution has failed to examine those witnesses. P.Ws.5 to 9 are only relatives of P.Ws.1 to 3. As per the evidence of the Investigating Officer, two independent witnesses were examined and their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were also recorded, but they have not examined before the trial Court as witness, which are all create suspicious on the case of the prosecution.

5.1 The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would further submit that the victims have categorically stated that two sisters came to their School and taught about good touch and bad touch, but, prosecution has projected that P.W.4 is the only one person went to the School to conduct awareness programme, which creates doubts in the case of the prosecution.

5.2 P.W.4, who set the law into motion and who claimed to be workin