The prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the identification of the accused and the DNA evidence must be reliable and properly documented to be admissible in court.

(Order of the Court was delivered by SUNDER MOHAN,J.)

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by Accused No.2, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him, vide judgment dated 28.03.2019 in Spl.S.C.No.35 of 2017, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram [Fast Track Court], Tiruppur.

2.(i) It is the case of the prosecution that the victim, a minor girl aged 14 years at the time of occurrence, while she was with her friend-PW5, near a public toilet at Sandhaipettai, on 09.03.2017 at about 9.30 p.m., the appellant (A2) and A1 came in a TVS-50 Moped bearing Regn.No.TN38 A 4576 assaulted PW5 and took the victim girl in PW5's bike to the corn fields belonging to one Prabhavathy at Dharapuram and committed repeated penetrative sexual assaults on her.

(ii) It is the further case of the prosecution that the victim girl made a complaint [Ex.P1] to the police on 10.03.2017 at about 3.00 p.m., before the respondent police. PW13, the Sub Inspector of Police, registered the FIR in Cr.No.2 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 366-A and 392 of the IPC and Section 5(g) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act') against the appellant and A1. The printed FIR was marked as Ex.P17. (iii) PW16, the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation and went to the scene of the occurrence on 10.03.2017 at about 4.35 p.m., and prepared the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P5] and Rough Sketch [Ex.P20] in the presence of the witnesses. She seized the earring [M.O.6] and a black- coloured sports bra [M.O.5] belonging to the victim from the scene of the occurrence under Seizure Mahazar [Ex.6]. Thereafter, she examined the witnesses and at about 9.00 p.m., arrested both the accused on the identification of PW5. She recorded the confession of the accused and seized the vehicle of PW5 [M.O.7] viz., TVS Victor bearing Regn.No.TN57 X 8061 from the possession of the accused, under the Seizure Mahazar [Ex.12]. Thereafter, she sent the accused for medical examination. She also seized a light blue-coloured full hand shirt [M.O.10] and a dark green and cement coloured checked lungi [M.O.12], belonging to the appellant and thereafter, sent all the dress materials and other articles seized, to the Court under Form-95. She sent the accused for medical examination to conduct potency test on 14.03.2017. (iv) In the meanwhile, on 13.03.2017, learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Udumalaipet, recorded the Section 164 Cr.P.C., statement of the victim. On 15.03.2017, PW16 made a requisition to the Magalir Neethimandram [Fast Track Court], Tiruppur, to send the vaginal smear and vaginal swab taken from the victim to the Forensic Science Laboratory.

Thereafter, she examined all other witnesses and after obtaining the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, she handed over the investigation to PW17.

(v) PW17, the Inspector of Police, thereafter took up the investigation and filed the final report against both the accused, for the offences under Sections 366 and 394 of the IPC and Section 5(g) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, before the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram [Fast Track Court], Tiruppur, which was taken on file as Special S.C.No.35 of 2017.

(vi) On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., were complied with and the trial Court framed charges against the accused, and when questioned, the accused pleaded 'not guilty'.

(vii) To prove the case, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.17, marked 27 exhibits as Exs.P1 to P27 and marked 13 Material Objects as M.O.1 to M.O.13. When the accused were questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same. The accused examined one Premalatha, mother of A1 as DW1 and did not mark any documents.

(viii) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found that the prosecution had established its