J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Special S.C.No.11 of

2019 dated 11.11.2021 on the file of the Mahila Court, Tiruppur.

2.The respondent police registered the case in Crime No.2 of 2018 initially against the appellant/A2 and one Manoj Kumar/A1 for the offences under Sections 5(g), 5(l), 5(n), 5(j)(ii) punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act and during the course of investigating, it was found that one Prakash also sexually assaulted the victim and impregnated her. Hence, the said Prakash was arrayed as A3 and the offences were altered into Sections 5(l), 5(n), 5(j)(ii), 6, 3(a), 4 of POCSO Act and Section 506 (2) IPC and after completing the investigation, the respondent police filed charged sheet before the Mahila Court, Tiruppur for the offence under Sections 3(a) punishable under Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the 1st accused; Section 5(l) punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the 2nd accused/the appellant herein and; Section 5(l), 5(j)(ii) punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 506 (2) IPC against the 3rd accused. The learned Sessions Judge, taken the charge sheet on file in Spl.S.C.No.11 of 2019 and framed charges against the 1st accused for the offences under Sections 3(a) punishable under Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012; against the 2nd accused/the appellant herein for the offences under Sections 5(l), 5(n) punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012; against the 3rd accused for the offence under Section 5(l), 5(j)(ii) punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 506 (2) IPC.

3. After framing the charges, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, during trial before the trial Court, totally 11 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.11 and 27 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.27 and one material object was exhibited.

4. After completing the examination of the prosecution witnesses, incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were put before the accused by questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, the accused denied the same as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence were produced.

5. On conclusion of trial after hearing the arguments advanced on either side, considering the materials, the learned Sessions Judge, found the first accused not accused guilty and thereby, acquitted him from all the charges. However, the learned Sessions Judge found the guilt of the 2nd and 3rd accused and thereby convicted and sentenced them. The 2nd accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo 20 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months for the offence under Sections 5(l) punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act 2012; to undergo 20 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months for the offence under Section 5(n) punishable under Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. Challenging the said Judgment of conviction and sentence, the 2nd accused has filed the present appeal before this Court.

6. The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl had love affair with A1 and she used to talk with A1 through the cell phone of her father without his knowledge and whenever, she was not able to get her father's cellphone, she used to get the cellphone of the appellant and talk with A1. The appellant is the distant relative of the victim and residing in the neighboring house of the victim and the victim used to call him as Thatha (Grandpa). Noting the victim talking to A1, the appellant by blackmailing the victim stating if she does not yield to his lust, he would disclose about her love affair with A1 to her parents, had sexual intercourse with the victim on several occasions. Subsequently, the victim became pregnant. Hence, the father