O R D E R

This Criminal Appeal is filed challenging the judgment passed on

06.07.2019 in Spl.Sessions Case No.22/2016 on the file of Fast Track Mahila Judge, Tiruvannamalai.

2. The respondent police registered the case against the appellant under Section 354(A) IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act in Crime No.20/2015 on the file of All Women Police Station, Arani. The respondent police, after investigation, laid the charge sheet before the Special Court, Tiruvannamalai (FT, Mahila Court). The Mahila Court taken the case on file in Special S.C.No.22 of 2016 and framed charges against the appellant.

3. Upon perusing the relevant records, the trial court has framed 1st charge against both the accused under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as “IPC”); 2nd charge under Sections 8 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter called as “POCSO Act” and the same have been read over and explained to them and the accused have denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

4. After framing charges, in order to prove the case, on the side of the Prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 9 have been examined, Exhibits 1 to 11 have been marked.

5. When the accused have been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as respects the incriminating materials available in evidence against them, they denied their complicity in the crime.

6. After closing of the prosecution witnesses, there is no defence witness.

After trial, the trial court acquitted the appellants under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and convicted them for the offence under Section 354(A) IPC (4 counts) and imposing fine of Rs.1000/- each, failing to pay the fine amount, to undergo imprisonment for one month. Further, the appellants are convicted under Section 12 of POCSO Act, and sentenced to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- in default, to undergo 3 months imprisonment.

7. Challenging the said judgment, the appellants/accused filed the present criminal appeal before this court.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has not proved the case as projected by the prosecution and also referred to Section 72 of IPC and further he has submitted that there is no intention on the part of the appellants. It is only a minor harm and the victim girls,if really aggrieved that the appellants committed offence under POCSO Act and that they uttered obscene words which is sexually harassing, then they ought to have filed complaint immediately. But in this case, they have not filed the complaint immediately, but they have informed their parents and their parents informed the villagers, thereafter, father of P.W.2, lodged complaint. He would further submit that the prosecution has not made out the case either Section 354-A IPC or under Section 12 of POCSO Act and further he referred to Section 42 of POCSO Act and submitted that the Court cannot punish the accused under both the Acts for similar offence but either they can convict under IPC or POCSO Act. But under both Acts, the accused cannot be punished.

9. Further, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is land dispute between the complainant parties and the appellants/accused and hence, with motive, the victim's father lodged false complaint. P.W.2 also admitted that there is land dispute between them. There is exchange of complaints between them. The trial court failed to consider these aspects and convicted more particularly under Section 354(A) IPC when they were acquitted under Section 8 of POCSO Act. Therefore, the trial court did not consider Section 42 of POCSO Act and convicted the appellants under Section 354(A) IPC as well as Section 12 of POCSO Act. Therefore, the conviction is liable to be set aside.

10. The learned counsel for the appellants also pleaded before this court that considering the age of the appellants, the punishment awarded by the Special Court is disproportionate to the proven charges. Therefore