JUDGMENT :

P.DHANABAL, J.

Challenging the conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thanjavur in Special S.C.No.14 of 2015 dated 24.07.2019, the present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant.

2.. The trial Court has convicted the appellant as follows:

3. The case of the prosecution is that the victim girl was residing at the house of one Rani and she was doing the work entrusted by the villagers. Thereby, the victim girl very often used to go to the house of the accused for doing housework. While so, in the month of May 2015, when the victim girl was in the house of the accused for watching TV, the accused gave fruit mixer juice to the victim girl with some substance and thereby, she became unconscious. Thereafter, he committed penetrative sexual assault towards the victim girl. Further, the accused committed penetrative sexual assault repeatedly on the victim girl and thereby, she got conceived and the same was aborted. The victim girl was aged about 15 years on the date of occurrence and thereby, the accused committed the offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act.

3.1.After some time, the occurrence was informed to the Child Welfare Committee, Thanjavur and the Child Welfare Committee/P.W.1 enquired the victim girl and thereafter, he lodged a complaint/Ex.P1 against the accused before the respondent Police. Based on the complaint, an FIR/Ex.P.11 has been registered in Crime No.1 of 2015 by P.W.19. Thereafter, P.W.19 handed over the case bundle to P.W.20 for investigation. P.W.20/investigation officer went to the place of occurrence and preferred observation mahazhar/Ex.P3 and rough sketch/Ex.P.12 and examined the witnesses. Thereafter, on 04.09.2015, at about 17.45 hours, she arrested the accused and remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter, she sent the victim girl for medical examination and obtained Ex.P.9/Accident Register and she has also taken steps to record the statement of the victim under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C. The Investigation Officer also examined the witnesses and obtained age certificate of the victim. After completion of investigation, the investigation officer/P.W.20 filed a final report.

3.2.After filing of final report, the trial Court has framed charges for the offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act. The above charge was read over and explained to the appellant. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3.3. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 to P.W.20 and marked exhibits Ex.P.1 to P.13 and one material object was marked as M.O.1. After completion of prosecution witnesses the appellant was examined under Section 313 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same as false. On the side of the appellant, one witness was examined as D.W.1 and no documents were marked.

3.4. After analyzing the evidence and upon hearing both sides, the trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence as stated supra. Aggrieved by the said judgment and conviction, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been charged for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act by stating that at the time of occurrence, the victim girl was aged about 15 years and the appellant committed penetrative sexual assault on her and thereby made her pregnant and thereafter, the victim girl aborted the child and he repeatedly committed penetrative sexual assault and thereby, he was charged for the above said offence. In fact, the prosecution is solely relying upon the evidence of the victim girl/P.W.3 and she has not stated anything about the penetrative sexual assault. According to her, earlier the occurrence took place at the house of the accused and he had given juice t