J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment in Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2017 dated 09.11.2018 passed by the learned Mahila Judge, (Sessions Judge), Salem.

2. Originally, the respondent police registered a case against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 506 (i) I.P.C and Sections 8 r/w 7, 3 r/w 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short 'POCSO' Act) and after investigation laid a charge sheet before the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Needhimandram for the offences punishable under Sections 451, 506(ii) I.P.C. and Section 4 and 8 of POCSO Act and Section 4 of Tamilnadu Women Harassment Act, 1998 and the learned Sessions Judge also taken the case on file in Spl.S.C.No.25 of 2017.

3. In order to prove the case of the prosecution before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution as many as 18 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.18 and 22 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P22 and one material object was marked. On the side of the defence, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

4. The learned Sessions Judge, after adverting to the materials placed on record and after hearing both the parties, by Judgment dated 09.11.2018, convicted the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 451 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment; for offence under Section 4 of POCSO Act 2012 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default to undergo further six months simple imprisonment; for offence under Section 4 of Tamilnadu Women Harassment Act, 1998 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment.

5.Aggrieved against the said judgment of conviction, the appellant has preferred the present criminal appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has not involved in the offence as alleged by the prosecution and there is no evidence to show that the appellant had committed the offence. It is further stated that the complaint was given only two months from the date of alleged occurrence and there is no explanation for delay in filing the complaint. He would further submit that at the time of admitting in the hospital, the victim girl has stated that due to stomach pain she consumed poison and the accident register does not reveal that due to sexual intercourse committed by the appellant, the victim consumed the poison.

7. He would further submit that P.W.16 the Doctor, who examined the victim girl, also stated that there is no external injuries on the private part of the victim girl and further no sperms were found on the private part of the victim and therefore the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He would further submit that the victim girl has consumed the poison only three months after the occurrence due to stomach pain, but the learned Judge failed to consider the same and only on the ground of presumption and suspicion, convicted the appellant and therefore the Judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside.

8. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that the victim girl is aged only 16 years at the time of occurrence and as per Ex.P6- the school certificate the date of birth of victim is only 20.05.2000 and the date of occurrence is 17.01.2017. He would further submit that P.W.16- Doctor who examined the victim girl and issued Ex.P14- Medical Examination report and Ex.P15-SOC form of the victim girl has opined that the age of the victim is between 16 to 17 years. He would further submit that the victim girl was examined before the Court as P.W.2. and she has clearly narrated before the learned Sessions Judge that the appellant is her neighbour and under the guise of marrying her, on the d