JUDGEMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 22.11.2019 made in Spl.S.C.No.14 of 2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode by convicting and sentencing the appellant under section 3 r/w 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-

in default to under go 3 months Simple Imprisonment.

2. The respondent police has filed the case in Crime No.19 of 2017 against the appellant for the offences under sections 9(n) punishable under section 10 and 5(n) punishable under section 6 of POCSO Act.

3. After investigation laid a charge sheet before the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode. After completing the formalities, the Special Judge, Erode taken the charge sheet on file in Special Sessions Case No.14 of 2018. After completing the formalities, framed the charges against the accused/appellant for the offences under section 5(n) punishable under section 6 and 9(n)

punishable under section 10 of POCSO Act.

4. After framing charges, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, during the trial on the side of the prosecution, as many as 12 witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 12 and 20 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to P20. One material object was also exhibited as M.O.1. After completing the examination of the prosecution witnesses, incriminating circumstances were culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and put before the accused by questioning under section 313 Crpc., and he denied the same as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, no oral evidence was produced and one document was marked as Ex.D1.

5. On completion of trial, hearing of arguments advanced on either side perused the materials, the trial court found the accused guilty of the abovesaid charges. However, found the accused guilty of the offence under section 3 of POCSO Act which is punishable under section 4 of POCSO Act, convicted and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Challenging the abovesaid judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused has filed the present Criminal Appeal before this Court.

6. The counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is not the father of the victim girl and the prosecution has not proved that the appellant is the father of the victim. The trial court also accepted that the prosecution has not proved the relationship between the appellant and the victim and acquitted the appellant for the charge of offence under section 5(n) punishable under section 6 of POCSO Act. However wrongly convicted the appellant for the offence under section 3 which is punishable under section 4 of POCSO Act.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the victim girl fell on love with one boy while she was studying in school. Victim's mother was staying in the house of the appellant. The appellant is the owner of the house in which the mother of the victim girl is residing as a tenant. The appellant asked the victim girl about the love affairs with the boy friend, in order to escape from it, she foisted a false case against the appellant. The mother of the victim girl examined as P.W.4, she has clearly stated that the appellant is the owner of the house in which she is residing as tenant. When she asked about the love affair of the victim girl with her boy friend and also she beaten her, at the time, the appellant also warned the victim girl. Therefore the victim girl gave a false complaint against the appellant and her mother. Therefore from the evidence of the mother of the victim girl P.W.4, it is proved that the appellant has not committed any offence and in order to take vengeance and since he warned the victim girl, she has foisted a false case against the appellant. Thou