JUDGMENT

The criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.10.2021 made in Spl.C.C.No.20 of 2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Coimbatore.

2 The respondent police registered a case in Cr.No.194 of 2017 against the appellant for the offence under Sections 366 IPC and Section 3(a) punishable under Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity “the POCSO Act”). After completing investigation, the respondent police laid a charge sheet before the Mahlila Court, Coimbatore, which was taken on file in Spl.C.C.No.17 of 2018 and charges were framed against the appellant/accused for the offence under Sections 366 IPC and Section 3(a) punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Subsequently, after formation of the Special Court for POCSO Act Cases and as per the orders, the case was transferred to Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Coimbatore, and renumbered as Spl.C.C.No.20 of 2019.

3 Before the trial Court, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, as many as 13 witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 13 and Exs.P1 to P15 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 was examined and one letter was marked as Ex.D1 and no material object was exhibited. Chariot

4 The learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Coimbatore, on completion of trial and hearing arguments advanced on either side, by judgment dated 20.10.2021 convicted the appellant/accused and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year for the offence under Section 366 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years for the offence under Section 3(a) punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Aggrieved against the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred the present criminal appeal before this Court.

5 The learned legal aid counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that there are contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 father of the victim girl regarding writing of complaint. During chief examination, P.W.1 stated that he himself written the complaint, but on cross examination, P.W.1 stated that he is an illiterate and he did not aware of author of the complaint. It is an admitted fact that on the date of occurrence, the victim went to 'car festival' along with her friends and came back late night and it is not possible for the accused to commit such offence as alleged by the prosecution.

5.1 Further Ex.D1 is the letter written by the victim admitting that the P.W.1 falsely lodged the complaint and she is not a reason for the incarceration of the appellant and when the victim was recalled by the Court to examine about D1, there also she admitted the recitals of D1. The trial Court has failed to note the above fact and erroneously convicted the appellant. There are contradictions in the evidence of P.W.6, who is the neighbour of the appellant with regard to the arrest, which shows that there is no such occurrence taken place as alleged by the prosecution.

5.2 P.W.7 is the Doctor, who examined the victim clinically, had opined that there is no evidence for the forceful intercourse and even as per the evidence of P.W.2/victim also there is no forceful sexual intercourse.

Hence medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution.

5.3 P.W.9, who registered the FIR had not carried out the enquiry in a proper manner a