The court affirmed the conviction of two accused under POCSO Act while modifying the sentence to ten years imprisonment based on the victim's reliable testimony and evidence.

JUDGMENT :

P.DHANABAL, J.

Challenging the conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Special Court (POCO Act Cases) Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur in Spl.S.C.No.76 of 2020 dated 24.11.2022 the present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants.

2. Originally there are two accused in this case and the first accused has faced charge for the offences under Sections 5 (m)(n)(l)r/w.6 of POCSO Act and Sections 468 ,471, 420 of IPC and the second accused has been charged for the offence under Section 5 (m)(n)(l)r/w.6 of and Section 5 06(i) of .

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the appellant in Crl.A(MD) No. 313 of 2023 hereinafter referred to as second accused and the appellant in Crl.A.(MD) No.354 of 2026 hereinafter referred to as first accused.

4. The trial Court convicted the first accused for the offences under Section 5 (l), 5(n) r/w.6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- i/d under go two years simple imprisonment. The trial Court has also convicted the second accused for the offence under Section 5 (l) r/w.5(n) r/w. 6 of to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- i/d under go two years simple imprisonment and further convicted the second accused for the offence under Section 5 06(i)of IPC and sentenced to undergo two year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- i/d to undergo one year simple imprisonment.

4.1. The trial Court acquitted the first appellant for the offence under Section 468 ,471,420 of IPC and Section 5 (m)r/w. 6 of POCSO Act and acquitted the second accused for the offence under Section 5 (m)r/w. 6 of

5. Crl.A(MD) No. 354 of 2026 has been preferred by the first accused and the Crl.A(MD) No.313 of 2026 has been preferred by the second accused. Since both the cases are arising out the same judgment both the appeals have been taken up for hearing together and passed common judgment.

6. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused is the adopted father of the victim girl and the second accused is the cousin of the victim girl. The sister of the first accused's wife had 12 children, thereby the victim who was born to the sister of the first accused's wife was adopted by the first accused and his wife who is the defacto complainant in this case and the victim was residing in the house of the first accused and his wife. While so, on 27.08.2020 due to illness the victim was taken to Government Hospital, Virudhunagar and she was admitted in the hospital at that time the doctor who treated the victim girl informed to the adopted mother of the victim that the victim was subjected for sexual assault, thereafter on 01.09.2020 when the victim was normal at about 5.00 pm., the defacto complainant/P.W.1 and Pethanatchi Eswari enquired the victim girl, at that time she stated that in the year 2018 when she was studying IV th standard her adopted father/first accused committed penetrative sexual assault on 29.09.2018 when the mother of the victim went to Srivilliputhur temple and thereafter also he committed penetrative sexual assault. Further in the year 2018 the first appellant gave false information that the victim was born to him and obtained birth certificate and based on the said forged birth certificate admitted the victim in the school as his daughter , thereby the first appellant has been charged for the offence under Sections 5 (m)(n)(l)r/w.6 of POCSO Act and Sections 468 ,471,420 of IPC . Further the first appellant was admitted in the Velammal hospital on 10.05.2019 at that time the mother of the victim dropped the victim girl to the house of the second accused who i