J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated

09.12.2019 in Spl.C.C.No.12 of 2018 by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Namakkal.

2.The case of the prosecution is that at the time of occurrence, the victim, who is aged about 13 years was studying 8th standard. The accused and the victim girl belonged to same village, prior to the date of occurrence i.e. on 15.01.2017, the accused took the victim girl to an isolated place and threatened her and attempted to commit sexual assault on her and at that time, the mother of the victim girl/de facto complainant intervened and saved the victim girl. Thereafter, on many occasions with sexual intention repeatedly watched the victim girl directly, signaled her and sang songs using her name and thereby, he committed an offence under Section 11(iv) r/w 12 of POCOS Act. On 15.01.2017, at about 8.00 p.m when the victim girl watching Kabadi match nearby Bhagavathi Amman Temple in the same village, the accused with an intention of having sexual intercourse with the victim induced her to follow him and when she followed him to a narrow lane, he gaged her mouth and took her to the unfinished house of one Shanmugam and committed an offence punishable under Section 366 IPC. Hence, P.W.1/mother of the victim girl, filed a complaint/Ex.P1 against the accused/appellant.

3.The respondent-Police registered a case in Crime No.1 of 2017 against the appellant for the offence under Sections 366 IPC and 11(4) of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereafter referred to as 'POCSO Act' for the sake of convenience]. After completing the investigation, the respondent police filed a charge sheet before the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Namakkal. The offence is against a child which falls under the definition of Section 2(1) (d) of POCSO Act and the learned Sessions Judge has taken cognizance of the case on file in Spl.C.C.No.12 of 2018. After completing the formalities, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the appellant for the offence under Section 11(iv) which is punishable under Section 12 of POCSO Act and Section 363 IPC.

4.In order to prove the case of the prosecution before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution as many as 9 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.9 and also marked 8 documents as Exs.P1 to P8 and no material object was marked. After examining the prosecution witnesses, the incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were put before the appellant/accused and questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence one witness was examined as D.W.1 and no documentary evidence was produced.

5. The Court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the materials available on record, found that the appellant is guilty for the following offences :

i. For the offence under Section 363 IPC the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months ;

ii. For the offence under Section 11(iv) which is punishable under Section 12 of POCSO Act, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and ordering the sentences to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentences, the appellant is before this Court.

6.1 The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

There is an enmity between the appellant and the victim girl's family, due to such enmity and to take vengeance, P.W.1/mother of the victim girl foisted a false case against the a