J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court) Erode in Special Sessions Case No.18 of 2019 dated 27.10.2021.

2.The respondent police registered the case against the appellant in Crime No.4 of 2019 for offences under Section 366 IPC and Section 9(m) read with Section 10 POCSO Act and after completing the investigation, laid charge sheet before the Court of Session, Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode. The learned Sessions Judge after completing the formalities, taken cognizance of the case on file in Spl.S.C.No.18 of 2019 and framed charges against the appellant for offence under Section 366 IPC and Section 9(m) read with Section 10 POCSO Act.

3. After framing the charges, in order to prove the case of the prosecution during trial before the trial Court, totally 13 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.13 and 18 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.18 and no 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 was produced.

5. On conclusion of trial after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and considering the materials, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty for the offences under Section 366 IPC and Section 9(m) punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act 2012 and convicted and sentenced to undergo 5 years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 2 months for the offence under Section 366 IPC; to undergo 5 years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-

in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 2 months for the offence under Section 9(m) punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act. Challenging the said Judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused has filed this present appeal before this Court. 6. The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl is a five years old child. The appellant was working at a tailoring shop situated opposite to the house of the victim child. The owner of the said tailoring shop had also rented a place in the first floor of the same building where the victim's family was residing. The parents of the victim were doing Soup business near the staircase in the ground floor of their house. On 13.03.2019 at about 9.00 p.m., when the victim child walked through the place of the tailoring shop in their building, the appellant took her to his shop, switched off the lights, removed her panties and touched her private parts and caused scratch injuries. In the meantime, the mother of the victim who went in search of the child, found the slippers of the victim child outside the shop of the appellant and by calling her name, went to the shop the appellant. On seeing the mother of the victim child, the appellant pushed her away. Thereafter, the mother of the victim taken the victim child to her house by scolding her as to why she went alone. Next day, the victim complained of pain in her private parts and when enquired, the victim child revealed offence committed by the appellant. Thereafter, the mother of the victim informed the same to her husband and lodged the complaint on 18.03.2019.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that due to previous enmity, a false case has been foisted against appellant. The parents of the victim child were doing Soup business under the stair case which caused inconvenience to the persons who came to the first floor. Hence, the same was questioned by the appellant due to which, they developed enmity against the appellant and subsequently lodged the