J U D G E M E N T

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated

30.06.2021 passed in Spl.S.C.No.82 of 2020 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Chennai.

2. The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.5 of 2020 against the appellant for the offence under Sections 10 and 12 of POCSO Act. After investigation, laid a charge sheet before the Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Chennai, since the offence is against child. The learned Special Judge taken the charge sheet on file in Spl.S.C.No.82 of 2020. After completing the formalities, framed the charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 10 read with 9(m) and under Section 12 read with 11(i) of POCSO Act altered to 18 read with 12 read with 11(i) of POCSO Act. During trial, in order to substantiate the charge, on the side of the prosecution, totally six witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 6 and seven documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7. On completion of examination of the prosecution witnesses, incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses put before the accused by questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the same as untrue and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was produced. 3. On completion of trial and hearing the arguments advanced on either side and considering the materials placed, the trial court found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 10 read with 9(m) and 12 read with 11(i) altered to 18 read with 12 read with 11(i) of POCSO Act. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the charge under Section 10 read with 9(m) of POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment.

4. Specific case of the prosecution is that on 30.08.2020 at about

11.30 hours, the defacto complainant was standing along with her daughter/victim child in front of her house, the appellant came by bicycle and asked idly flour and when the complainant went inside the house to take idly flour. Meanwhile, when the victim girl went to rest room situated at the outside of the house, the appellant asked her name then he pulled her and kissed her on her mouth and he lifted his waist. All of a sudden the victim girl pushed him away and ran inside the house and cried. On hearing the crying sound of the victim, the complainant/mother enquired her. The victim girl narrated the entire incident to her mother. Immediately when the defacto complainant rushed outside of her house and she has seen that the accused was escaping from the place by riding the bicycle. Immediately the defacto complainant raised an alarm to chase the appellant and neighbors of defacto complainant asked the details and chased the appellant. Then, she preferred the complaint before the respondent police and the respondent police registered the case and investigated the matter and laid a charge sheet.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no eye witness in this case and the defacto complainant is the mother of the victim girl has not seen the alleged occurrence. The victim girl went inside the house and informed the incident to her mother and thereafter the defacto complainant came outside and she has seen the accused is highly improbable. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place on 30.08.2020 at about 11.30 hours whereas, the complaint was given at 14 hours. F.I.R was reached the court only on 31.08.2020 at about 4.45 pm. There is a delay in sending the F.I.R to the court and there is no occurrence said to have taken place as projected by the prosecution. Further, he would submit that the vi