O R D E R

This Criminal Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated

06.06.2022 made in Spl.Sessions Case No. 59/2020 on the file of learned Special Judge under POCSO Act, Puducherry.

2. The respondent police registered a case against the appellant in Crime No.26 of 2020 for the offences punshiable under Section 10 of Protection of Children from sexual offences Act, 2012. The respondent police, after investigation, laid the charge sheet before the Special Court since the offences against the Child viz., Special Judge under POCSO Act, Puducherry, the Special Court taken the case on file in Special S.C.No. 59 of 2020 and after completing all formalities framed charges against the appellant for the offences under Section 9 (I) punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act.

3. After framing charges and completing formalities, during the trial before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution as many as nine (9) witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW9 and 9 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P9, besides one material object MO1 was marked as exhibit.

4. After examining entire prosecution witnesses, when incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of prosecution witness were put to appellant by questioning under Section 313 Crpc, wherein the accused denied his complicity in the crime. On the side of defence, no oral or documentary evidence were produced.

5. On completion of trial and hearing of arguments advanced on either side and on considering the materials, the trial Court found the appellant guilty for the offences under Section 9 (I) punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act and sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

6. Aggrieved over the said judgment of conviction, the appellant/accused has filed the present criminal appeal before this court.

7. It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 15.01.2020 at

6.30 hrs, the appellant called the victim over phone to come to his house, when she went to his house, no one was there in the house except the appellant. At that time the appellant misbehaved with the victim and pressed her breasts and threatened the victim not to tell the same to anybody. On the next day i.e on 16.01.2020 the appellant called the victim over phone to his house and threatened her that if she did not come, he would commit suicide. The victim again went to the appellant's house, again the appellant did the same. Thereafter again on 17.01.2020 the appellant called the victim by threatening , hence she went to his house and the appellant tried to do the same, but she managed and came out from his house. On 10.02.2020 when the victim was taking with the appellant over phone and crying, her mother saw and enquired her, she narrated all the incidents. Thereafter four days later i.e. on 14.02.2020, her mother lodged a complaint before the respondent police against the appellant. The respondent police registered a case against the appellant.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there was money transaction between the mother of the victim and the wife of the appellant, due to dispute in the money transaction and to take vengeance against him, a false complaint was registered against the appellant by the mother of the victim. Further there is contradiction in the statement of victim and the mother of the victim /PW1. During cross examination the victim has stated that after returning from school in the evening, she went to the appellant's house, whereas the mother of victim has stated that the appellant called victim at the morning , therefore the time of occurrence was not proved by the prosecution. The prosecution has not explained the material contradictions regarding time of the occurrence and the place of the occurrence was also not established by the prosecution. The investigating officer /PW4 in the mahazar has clearly stated that the investigating officer inspect