The court set aside the conviction for sexual harassment due to victim inconsistencies but upheld convictions for related offences based on sufficient evidence.

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed as against the order dated 12.09.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Fast Tract Mahila Court, Tiruppur, in Spl. S.C.No.12 of 2021, thereby convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 9 (m) r/w 10 (2 counts), 11(i) r/w 12 (2 counts) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the POCSO Act”) and Section 506(ii) (2 counts) of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.10.2020 at about

2.00 p.m., when both the victims were playing outside their house, the accused with intention to cause sexual harassment, invited them to his house. Thereafter, the first victim was called to his bedroom and the accused had removed his dress and had shown his private part to the first victim. She was asked to hold and shake the same. Thereafter, he called the second victim and asked him to do the same. He also offered money for the same. He further threatened the victims not to disclose it to anybody. On the complaint, the respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.16 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Section 9 (m), 10 of the POCSO Act and Section 506(ii) of IPC. After completion of investigation, they filed final report and the same was taken cognizance in Spl. S.C.No.12 of 2021.

3. On the side of the prosecution, they had examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and marked documents in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. On the side of the accused no one was examined and no documents were marked. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidences, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 9 (m) r/w 10 (2 counts), 11(i) r/w 12 (2 counts) of the POCSO Act and Section 506(ii) (2 counts) of IPC and sentenced him as follows :-

The above sentences are ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that even according to the case of the prosecution, no offence is made out under Section 9 (m) r/w 10 of the POCSO Act. The alleged act attracts the offence under Section 11 (i) r/w Section 12 of the POCSO Act. The victims are examined as P.W.1 & P.W.2 and there are contradictions to each other. Those contradictions are fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further, both the evidences are unbelievable and liable to be eschewed. While seeing the evidence in Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.4 together with the deposition of P.W.1 and P.W.2 exposes the falsity of the entire case of the prosecution. Further P.W.3 is an interested witnesses and as such it is unbelievable one. Due to previous enmity between the appellant and the defacto complainant, false complaint has been foisted as against the appellant.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police submitted that both the victims were examined as P.W.1 & P.W.2 and they categorically deposed the case of the prosecution and proved the charges. P.W.1 & P.W.2 deposed cogently and th