IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 01.09.2021 Pronounced on : 22.10.2021 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Crl.A. No.351 of 2021 K.Venkatesh, S/o. Kannan ... Appellant -Vs-

State rep. by Inspector of Police, W-6, All Women Police Station, Ayanavaram, Chennai.

(Crime No. 3 of 2018) ... Respondent Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgment passed by against the appellant on 22.04.2021 in S.C.No.183 of 2018 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Court Division and acquit him from all the charges.

For Appellant : Mr.A.Punithavanan For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

J U D G M E N T

(This case has been heard through video conference)

This Criminal Appeal is filed against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Chennai dated 22.04.2021 in S.C.No.183 of 2018.

2. The respondent police registered the case against the appellant in Crime No.3 of 2018 for the offence under Section 6, 8 and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012. After investigation, the respondent police laid the charge sheet before Mahila cum Children Court, and the same was subsequently transferred to the Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act. The learned Sessions Judge taken the charge sheet on file in S.C.No.183 of 2018 and after completing the formalities under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. framed charges against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sec.12 and 6 of POCSO Act. After framing of charges, in order to prove the case of prosecution, on the side of prosecution, as many as 6 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.6, 12 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to P12, besides, one material object was marked as M.O.1

3. After completing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were put before the appellant / accused by questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appeared on the prosecution witnesses, the same were denied by the accused as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, one witness was examined as D.W.1 and no document was marked.

4. On completion of trial, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side, and on perusal of materials placed before the trial court, the Special Court found guilt of accused and convicted him for the offence under Section 9 (m), punishable under Sec.10 of POCSO Act, and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused has filed the present appeal before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the defacto complainant had foisted a false case against the appellant due to animosity, since the appellant did not give money demanded by mother of victim girl. Further, he would submit that on the date and at the time of occurrence, the accused was not present at the place of occurrence. The accused was a Store Manager at King's Young (Kay) Textile shop and he attended duty between 9.56 a.m. and 9.34 p.m., with the short break between 11.00 and 11.13 a.m. between 1.00 p.m. and 1.047 p.m. for lunch, between 05.00 and 05.14 for evening break and between 08.27 and 08.40 for night break and then at 9.34 p.m. he left from shop only at 09.34 p.m. In order to substantiate the case, D.W.1 was examined, who was a store manager at the relevant point of time and the bio-metric attendance was also marked as Ex.D1 for the date of occurrence dated 04.04.2018. He would further submit that there is a delay in filing the complaint and the prosecution has not proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt as if the accused