J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence, dated 01.08.2019 made in S.C.No.30 of 2016, by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai.

2. The respondent-police has registered a case in Crime No.13 of 2015 against the appellant for the offences under Sections 4 and 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity “the POCSO Act”). After investigation, laid a charge sheet. Since the offence committed against the child, the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruvannamalai taken the case on file in Special S.C.No.30 of 2016. After completing the formalities, framed the charges against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 8 of POCSO Act and conducted the trial.

3. After considering the evidence on record and hearing on either side, the learned Judge, by judgment dated 01.08.2019, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 4 of POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo seven years Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment and for the offence punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act, sentenced him to undergo 3 years Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment.

4. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction dated 01.08.2019, the appellant / accused had preferred the present Criminal Appeal before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the occurrence was alleged to have taken place on 14.08.2015, whereas, the complaint was lodged only on 15.10.2015, after two months. The delay in giving the complaint has not been properly explained, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. He would further submit that both the appellant and the victim girl are close relatives and since the parents of the appellant refused the appellant to marry the victim girl, and there was also previous enmity between them with regard to civil dispute, they foisted such a false case against the appellant. He would further submit that the victim girl during her evidence deposed that the occurrence was said to have taken place on 14.08.2015, whereas, in the complaint given by P.W.1-the father of the victim girl, no date of occurrence has been mentioned and even the statement given by the victim girl, which was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., she has not stated the date of occurrence and there is no consistency in her statement and there are material contractions. The learned counsel would further stated that though the victim girl informed the occurrence to her parents on 10.10.2015, but the complaint was given only on 15.10.2015, only after 5 days and the delay has not been properly explained and even no independent witnesses were examined in this case. The victim girl has stated that on the date of occurrence, when she was in the house, his brother and sister were available and at that time, the appellant came and had sexual intercourse with her, whereas, her brother and sister, have not been examined as a witness, which is also fatal to the case of the prosecution. Hence, the learned counsel prays for setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judge.

6. The learned Government Advocate for the respondent-Police would submit that at the time of occurrence, the victim girl was only aged 17 years and she is close relative to the appellant. The appellant and the victim girl loved each other and on 14.08.2015, when the parents of the victim girl had gone to Chennai to visit grandfather of the victim girl, who was admitted at Hospital due to an accident, at that time, the victim girl and her younger sister and brother were only in the house, the appellant telephoned the victim girl and after the brother and sister of the victim girl slept, the accused came at 11.30 p.m. and though the vict