The prosecution failed to prove the charges of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act due to inconsistencies in testimonies and lack of corroborative medical evidence.

JUDGMENT

The appellant was convicted by judgment dated 30.11.2021 in Special S.C.No.80 of 2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court (POCSO Court Cases), Cuddalore and sentenced to undergo twenty years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment for offence under Section 5(m), 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 r/w Section 376AB IPC.

Challenging the same, the present criminal appeal is filed.

2.Case of the prosecution is that PW1 is the defacto complainant and PW2/victim girl is her elder daughter aged about six years as on the date of occurrence. PW1's younger daughter is a deaf and dumb child, for treatment, PW1 takes her younger daughter to Chennai on every Tuesday and Friday. PW1 employed as Insurance Agent in State Bank of India, the appellant a neighbour residing two houses away from the house of PW1. On 20.01.2019, the victim girl went to the appellant's house for play, at that time, the appellant made the victim girl to sit on him, undressed himself, removed her dress and undergarments, laid over her, placed his penis on her genitalia with force and also squeezed her breast and buttocks, the victim girl was threatened not to disclose the same to anyone. On 21.01.2019, PW1 was giving bath to the victim girl, at that time, she noticed marks and contusions on the breast and buttocks of victim girl. When questioned, victim girl disclosed the appellant's act. PW1's husband was working in Dubai, hence, fearing for life, she kept quite and not immediately informed anyone. Later, PW1 gained strength, on 06.03.2019 called her husband, informed the incident. PW1 went to the appellant's house and questioned the incident but he denied. Thereafter, PW1 lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) to the respondent Police. PW6, Sub Inspector of Police received the complaint (Ex.P1), registered FIR (Ex.P6) in Crime No.3 of 2019 for offence under Sections 342 IPC and Sections 5(l) & 5(m) r/w 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, PW6 visited the scene of occurrence, prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P3), Rough Sketch (Ex.P7), arrested the appellant, produced the victim girl for recording 164 statement, thereafter, handed over the investigation to PW9, Inspector of Police.

3.PW9 conducted further investigation, visited the scene of occurrence, examined the witnesses PW1/defacto complainant, PW2/her elder daughter/victim girl, her brother/PW3, her sister-in-law/PW8, her mother/PW7 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. Thereafter, PW9 sent the victim girl and the appellant for medical examination. The Doctor/PW4 examined the victim girl and issued medical report (Ex.P4) and Doctor/PW5 conducted potency test for appellant and issued medical report (Ex.P5). On collection of medical reports, 164 Statement of victim girl (Ex.P8), school certificate and other documents, charge sheet filed before the trial Court.

4.During trial, on the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW10 examined and Exs.P1 to P10 marked. On the side of the defence, no witness examined and no document marked. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court convicted the appellant as stated above.

5.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is projected as though the appellant and PW1 are relatives and the appellant is a neighbour residing two houses away from PW1's house. The appellant and PW1 are not relatives and they belong to different community. Further, it is alleged the victim girl used to visit the appellant's house to watch television, during that time, the appellant is said to have committed