J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Special Judge under the POCSO Act 2012 and Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry convicting the appellant dated 30.01.2020 in Spl.S.C.No.14 of 2016.

2. The respondent police registered the case against the appellant in Crime No.44 of 2016 for the offence under section 365 IPC. Subsequently during the investigation the offence has been altered into section 365 IPC and section 6 of POCSO Act 2012. After the investigation, laid charge sheet before the learned Special Judge, Puducherry. Since the offence is against child, the learned Special Judge after completing the formalities, taken the case on file in Spl.S.C.No.14 of 2016. After the trial, the learned Special Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under section 365 IPC, sentenced him to undergo 7 years R.I and pay a fine of Rs.1000/- indefault to undergo R.I for three months. For the offence under section 6 of POCSO Act, the accused is sentenced to undergo R.I for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo R.I for 3 months. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused has filed the present appeal before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that according to the appellant, the occurrence is said to have taken place on 09.06.2016 whereas the complaint was given on 10.06.2016 and the delay in filing the complaint has not been properly explained and even the victim girl soon after securing, she has not stated anything against the appellant. Subsequently after counselling, the victim girl has narrated the incident. Then only, the police obtained statement against the appellant. There is material contradiction between the evidence of victim girl and parents of the victim girl and brother of the victim girl. The doctor has clearly deposed in her statement that there is no possibility of recent sexual intercourse and also there is no external injuries. He further submitted that in the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C also, it is stated that she has not stated anything before the respondent police and also the girl has clearly stated that the appellant has not forcibly taken her and also has not stated that the appellant had forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. So the prosecution has not proved the case and they have not stated how they traced out the appellant and the victim girl. Even the victim girl has stated that she only voluntarily went with the appellant since the parents assaulted the victim girl and restricted her. As per the instructions of victim girl, the appellant has taken the victim girl. Therefore, the appellant no way connected with the case. There are material contradictions between prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence is also against the prosecution case it does not support the case of the prosecution. Call details were collected by the prosecution and the said phone number does not tally with Murugesan phone number and prosecution has not stated how they traced out the appellant along with victim. Therefore, there are material contradiction. The learned trial Judge failed to consider all the contradictions and wrongly convicted the appellant.

4.Mr.V.Balamurugane, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry) would submit that at the time of occurrence, the victim girl th was only aged about 14 years and she was studying 9 standard. The appellant is the relative and is a married man and he used to visit the house of the victim girl in the absence of her parents and develop love with her. Even though he is aged about 35 years and already a married man, he induced the victim girl and made a false promise to the victim girl who is only aged about 14 years and had sexual intercourse with her several times and also provided cell phone. The parents came to know about the same, they warned the victim girl and the victim girl eloped with the appellant and the appellant also with