JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment and conviction passed in S.C.No.21 of 2014 dated 12.08.2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai.

2. The appellant was convicted for the offences under Section

5(m)r/w.6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- indefault to undergo six month simple imprisonment.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.09.2013 at about 4.30 pm., the victim/ girl child aged about 4 ½ years went to the petty shop of the accused, where the accused committed penetrative sexual assault. Thereafter when the mother of the victim came and searched the victim at that time the child was crying and when she asked about the same she told that the accused has taken her into the petty shop and committed penetrative sexual assault, thereafter the victim was taken to hospital and then the mother of the victim gave complaint/Ex.P.1. Based on that complaint, P.W.16 registered First Information Report/Ex.P.16. Thereafter the case was investigated by P.W.19 and she examined witnesses, recorded statements, collected documents and thereafter she filed final report as against the accused.

4. Thereafter copies of documents relied by the prosecution were furnished to the accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C and then after hearing both sides the trial Court has framed charges under Section 5(m)r/w.6 of POCSO Act. The charges were read over and explained to the accused and he denied the charges and thereby inorder to prove the case the prosecution has examined P.W. 1 to P.W.19 and marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.21 and two material objects were marked as M.O.1 and M.O.2. On the side of the defence no witnesses were examined and one document Ex,D.1 was marked. After completion of evidence the trial Court had examined the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating circumstances as against the accused and the accused denied the evidence. After analysing the oral and documentary evidence on both sides the trial Court had convicted the accused for the offences under Section 5(m)r/w.6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- i/d. to undergo six months simple imprisonment.

5. As against the judgment and conviction passed by the learned learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai the present appeal has been preferred by the accused/ appellants on the following grounds:

a) the judgment of the Court below is against law, weight of evidence and all the probabilities of the case.

b) P.W.1 had stated in her cross examination occurrence place is next door of the defacto complainant house and then at the time of occurrence the victim child's pant was not removed and not tear hence no offence is committed.

c)P.W.9 had stated in his cross examination medical report says that there is no hymen intact to the victim girl and that a small laceration of 0.2 cm in the fourchette and no evidence of hair of other person in the vagina of the victim and there is no external injury from the above it is clear that there is no penetrative sexual assault was happened at the time of occurrence.

d)PW.10 had stated in his cross examination that from his clinical examination erection of the accused/appellant cannot be demonstrated /not found at present and also his age is 61 at the time of occurrence for which doctor examination itself there is no penile doppler to the petitioner/appellant at present heal condition.

e) P.W.8 had stated in his cross examination information given to him orally on 24.09.2023 and she was present to the respondent police station on 25.09.2013 and he advice to the mother of the victim after advice only P.W.1 had lodged a complaint against this accused and the said evidence clearly shows complaint given to the respondent police and filed the First Information Report with one day delay.

f)P.W.2 had sated in his cross