JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him vide judgment dated 03.08.2017 in Spl.S.C.No.09 of 2015 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Vellore District.

2(i). It is the case of prosecution that the appellant and the victim along with her parents and her grandparents travelled in a Chennai Mail Train bearing No.12602, from Pallakat to Chennai and while, the train was proceeding from Jolarpet Railway Station to Katpadi Railway Station, at about 02.55 hours, when the victim was sleeping in the middle berth, the accused with sexual intent invited her, caused intimidation, fear of violence, touched her chin and thereby had committed aggravated sexual assault without penetration punishable offences under Section 10 r/w 9 (m) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002.

(ii) It is further the case of the prosecution that P.W.1/the father of the victim informed the Railway Police Force and had also stopped the train by pulling the chain; that the Railway Police Force Personnel arrested the appellant; that P.W.1 got down from the train at Katpadi Railway Station and lodged a complaint before the Katpadi Railway Police Station in Crime No.456 of 2014 dated 11.12.2014 at about 9.00 hours; that the said complaint was registered by P.W.6/the Sub Inspector of Police and the FIR was marked by Ex.P2; that the complaint given by P.W.1 was marked as Ex.P1; that after examination of all the witnesses, the respondent filed the Final Report for the offences under Section 10 r/w 9 (m) of the POCSO Act, Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act on 09.03.2015 before the Sessions Court, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Vellore.

(iii) After copies were furnished under Section 207 Cr.P.C., charges were framed against him for the offences under Section 10 r/w 9(m) of the POCSO Act, Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act.

(iv) To prove the case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and marked 4 exhibits as Exs.P1 to P4. When the appellant was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. The appellant/accused neither examined any witnesses, nor marked any documents.

(v) The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, found the appellant guilty of all the offences and sentenced him as follows:

3.(i) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complaint is false and since P.W.1 and the accused had an altercation the previous night regarding sharing of the berth, he had lodged a false complaint; that in the earliest version, namely in Ex.P1/complaint, no details have been given as to the nature of sexual assault said to have been committed by the appellant, and hence, the First Information Report was registered only for the offence under Section

12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

(ii) The learned counsel further submitted that there are material contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and that an important witness, namely the Railway P