J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Spl.C.C.No.4 of 2016 dated 06.02.2019 on the file of the Sessions Judge Magalir Neethimandram (FTMC) Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris, convicting the appellant under section 3(1)(XI) of the Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prevention of the Atrocities Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo 6 months RI and imposed fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment and also convicted for offence under section 7 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo three years RI and imposed fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo

3 month simple imprisonment.

2.The respondent police registered a case against the appellant for the offence punishable under section 3(1)(XI) of the Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 and section 8 of the POCSO Act in crime No.3 of 2015. After registering the case, the respondent police investigated the matter and laid a charge sheet before the Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (FTMC) Udhagamandalam, Nilgiris. Since the offence against the child falls under the POCSO Act, the learned Sessions Judge, after completing the formality, framed the charge against the appellant for offence under sections 3(1)(XI) of the Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 and section 7 of the POCSO Act. After framing of charges, the learned Sessions Judge conducted the trial. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the guilt of the appellant for the above said charges and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of the said fine amount, the accused is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and accused is convicted for offence under section 7 of POCSO Act and for committing offence under section 7 of POCSO Act, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of the said fine amount, the accused is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and the above sentences imposed on the accused are ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed the present appeal before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is the neighbour to the victim girl and the appellant has no child. Therefore the victim and her elder sister used to visit the house of the appellant frequently and even the appellant used to help their education and also extended monetary benefits also. The father of the victim girl borrowed money from the friend of the appellant and for which, the appellant also executed a surety. The father of the victim girl failed to repay the amount. There was a quarrel between them. Further he would submit that the appellant is the president of the village and during his tenure as village head, asked the complainant/father of the victim girl to vacate the houses constructed by him abutting highways and so there is enmity between the appellant and defacto complainant. That apart, the defacto complainant thought that the accused who took care of PW.3 and P.W.4 as if they are his own daughters would bequeath his properties to P.W.3 and 4, but the appellant executed a will bequeathing his two houses and other properties in favour of appellant's sister's grand son and grand daughter. Therefore, they developed enmity and once the appellant beaten the complainant. Therefore, in order to take vengeance of the enmity, the defacto complainant/father of the victim girl foisted a false case. He would further submit that after the said alleged occurrence, the defacto complainant went to the house of the appellant and shouted at him.

4. The neighbours were examined in order to prove the case and they deposed that there was a wordy quarrel between the appellant and