The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so leads to acquittal.

JUDGEMENT

This criminal appeal has been preferred against the Judgement dated

28.04.2025 passed in Spl.S.C.No.84 of 2020 by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under POCSO Act, Chennai.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim was aged 7 years at the time of occurrence. While she was playing with her friend in front of the appellant's shop on 17.08.2020 at about 06.30 P.M., the appellant/accused called her to his salon shop with sexual intention and shut the door. Thereafter, the appellant touched the victim's breast area, left shoulder, left thigh, right side of the hip and held her hands. In continuation of the same, on another day, with a small DVD in his shop, the appellant had shown pornography to the victim child and rubbed her breast, back, and vagina, and also committed sexual assault. On lodgement of the complaint, the respondent registered the First Information Report in Crime No.6 of 2019 for the offence under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter “the POCSO Act”). After completion of the investigation, a final report was filed before the Trial Court, where the charges were framed for the offences under Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.6 and marked the documents Exs.P1 to P13. On the side of the accused, D.W.1 to D.W.4 were examined and Exs.D1 to D4 was marked. The prosecution had also produced material evidence, M.O.1 to M.O.3. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo 5 years imprisonment and imposed fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the mother of the victim was examined as P.W.1. She categorically deposed in the examination and admitted that except for her signature found in the complaint, all other portions of the complaint were not written by her. She did not even read the contents of the complaint. Therefore, there is absolutely no opposition to the investigation and also to filing a final report. The alleged occurrence took place on 17.03.2019, whereas the complaint was lodged on 18.03.2019; the delay was not explained by the prosecution. In fact, the appellant was not even present on 17.03.2019 at his shop since he had gone to Tirupathy. In support of his contention, on the side of the accused/appellant, D.W.1 to D.W.4 were examined. The witnesses categorically deposed that on 17.03.2019, they celebrated the appellant's sister-in-law's daughter's “Thali Korkkum” function, and on the same day, they went to Tirupathy, and thereafter, the appellant, along with the other family members, returned only on 19.03.2019 from Tirupathy. The appellant had also produced photographs which were taken at that “Thali Korkkum” function which was held on 17.03.2019 at Tirupathy. The photographs were also marked as Ex.D3. Further, he stated that no such occurrence had taken place as alleged by the prosecution and a false complaint has been foisted against the appellant. Even assuming that the appellant was in that place on the date of the alleged occurrence, the testimony of the mother of the victim girl/P.W.1 did not support the case of the prosecution. Even according to her, the appellant had touched all over the body of the victim girl. Further, the victim girl was examined as P.W.2, she deposed tha