The testimony of a victim in sexual assault cases holds significant weight, even in the absence of corroboration, and should not be deemed an accomplice's testimony.

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed as against the order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri, made in Special S.C.No.16 of 2016, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 9 (c)(f)(m) r/w 10 (1 count) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (hereinafter referred to as “the POCSO Act”).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint lodged by the victim, the Block Elementary Educational Officer conducted enquiry and on the basis of the enquiry report, the respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.3 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 & 8 of the POCSO Act, alleging that the Headmaster of the Mukkulam Panchayat Union Primary School, Dharmapuri District, committed sexual assault on the minor victim girls who are studying third and fourth standard by kissing them and touching their breast and private parts. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court in Spl.S.C.No.16 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Section 354 (A)

of IPC and Sections 9 (f) 5 counts, 9(m) 5 counts of the POCSO Act.

3. On the side of the prosecution they had examined P.W.1 to P.W.23 and marked documents in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.30. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and marked one document as Ex.D.1. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidences, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Section 9 (c), 9(f), 9(m) r/w. 10 of POCSO Act for one count and sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a find of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo further period of six months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the present appeal.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that on the enquiry report conducted by P.W.8 who was the President of the Parents Teachers Association, the respondent registered the FIR. It was lodged due to the previous enmity between them in respect of handling funds sanctioned for the school. The appellant did not allow P.W.8 to misuse the school funds. Therefore, P.W.8 insisted the school children to lodge false complaint and on that basis, they conducted enquiry and submitted report. Though the victim girls P.W.1 to P.W.5 made statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., alleging that the appellant had committed sexual assault on them, while they were examining as P.W.1 to P.W.5, P.W.1, 2, 4 and 5 turned hostile and they failed to support the case of the prosecution. As far as P.W.3 is concerned, she was threatened to the core to give false evidence in such a way before the trial Court. In fact, there were contradictions between the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., and the deposition before the Court below. Further, the deposition of P.W.3 is not corroborated with any other evidence. P.W.1, 2, 4 and 6 deposed about the good conduct of the appellant and no such sexual assault committed by the appellant towards the students. In fact, none of the parents of the victim children came forward to lodge complaint. The case has been registered only on the basis of the discreet enquiry conducted by P.W.8 and the report. Therefore, when the evidence placed by the prosecution failed to prove the guilty of the prosecution, no presumption can be drawn under Section

29 of the POCSO Act.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police submitted that though P.W.1, 2, 4 and 5 turned hostile, P.W.3 categorically deposed and the prosecution proved its case beyond any doubt for the offences under Sections 9 (c