The conviction in sexual offences requires credible and reliable evidence, especially regarding the victim's age, and reliance solely on secondary evidence without primary proof is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

N.MALA, J.

(1) The above Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/sole accused against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.10.2015, made in Spl.SC.No.33/2014, by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Thoothukudi, convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused for the offences under Section 366 of IPC and under Section 4 of POCSO Act.

(2)The factual scenario as unfolded during the course of trial is as follows:-

(a)The case of the prosecution in a nutshell:

The victim girl was 14 years old at the time of occurrence as per her recorded date of birth, 30.12.1999. The victim was residing in her aunt Murugeswari's house in Rajapalayam and was pursuing her studies there. During summer vacation / holidays, the victim used to visit her parents and assist her father [PW1] in vegetable business. While so, she developed acquaintance with the appellant/accused, a resident of neighbouring Village, Govindanpatti. On 20.05.2014, the victim went to the house of PW3-sister of PW4, in Uttudanpatti to attend a temple festival. On 22.05.2014, when PW3 was away from her house, the appellant/accused, who went to the Village of Uttudanpatti, to install radio set for the temple festival, finding that the victim was alone, kidnapped her to his grandfather's house at Mel Eral and committed sexual assault on her. Thereafter, he took the victim to Andhra, and returned to his grandfather's house with the victim and repeatedly committed sexual assault on her. Meanwhile, PW3, who is the Chithy/younger maternal aunt of the victim informed PW1, the father of the victim that the victim was missing from her house. After searching the victim girl for two days, PW1 lodged a complaint before the Kadambur Police Station on 24.05.2014, under Ex.P1.

(b)Based on the complaint (Ex.P.1) of PW1 (the father of the victim), the FIR came to be registered under Ex.P.4 in Crime No.51/2014, on 24.05.2014, by PW7-Grade II PC. PW.13-Mr.Balasundaram, Inspector of Police, took up the investigation and after examination of witnesses, arrested the appellant/accused on 08.06.2014, altered the FIR from ''Girl Missing'' to one under Section 366 -A and 376 of IPC, under Ex.P11 and forwarded the Case Diary to PW14- Maarichami, Inspector of Police, who conducted the further investigation and on completion of other formalities like recording the 164[5] Cr.P.C., statements, the statement of the victim girl [PW2] , altered the Final Report /Alteration Report under Ex.P14, on 24.10.2014, for the offences u/s.366 of and under Section 4 of POCSO Act.

(c)Te Final Report/Alteration Report was taken on file by the Trial Court on 23.02.2022, in Spl.SC.No.33/2014. On 18.10.2022, the charges were framed against the appellant/sole accused for the offences under Section 366 [A] of IPC and under Section 4 of POCSO Act. The appellant/accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and thereafter, on examination of the prosecution witnesses, charges were altered to, for the offences u/s.366 of and under Section 4 of. The appellant/accused pleaded not guilty.

(3) The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the appellant/accused, examined PW1 to PW14 and filed Exs.P1 to P14.

(4) The Trial Court, on completion of trial, found the appellant/accused guilty of the aforesaid offences and convicted and sentenced him as follows:-

(5) Aggrieved by the aforesaid c