A conviction in a criminal case, especially under the POCSO Act, requires unassailable evidence; testimony derived from family compulsion, inconsistent with prior statements, and appearing motivated by personal enmity fails the 'sterling witness' test, rendering it unreliable for sustaining a conviction.

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed as against the judgment dated 30.06.2016 passed in S.C.No.7 of 2015 by the learned Special Judge, Principal Session Judge, Puducherry, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 9(u), 9(l) and 9(m), 10 & 11(iii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "the POCSO Act") and Section 506(ii) of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 31.03.2013, the defacto complainant and his wife had gone for a marriage and they had returned home at about 9.30 p.m. At that time, the defacto complainant found his elder daughter viz., the victim girl lying on the sofa and crying. When the defacto complainant inquired her, she had prevented him even from touching her. Thereafter, the defacto complainant compelled her to reveal the truth to him by threatening her that he would commit suicide. Immediately she informed that the appellant herein came and took her to buy cigarettes. Thereafter, he had also bought some chocolates for her and took her to his house. Thereafter, he had asked her about the colour of her inner garment and had also removed her inner garment and had seen her private part. Immediately, she flew away from the place of occurrence. She was also threatened by him with dire consequences if she discloses the occurrence to anyone. She further informed that it was happening for the past six months. On the complaint, the respondent police registered the FIR in Crime No.37 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 9(u), 10, 11(iii) & 12 of the POCSO Act & Section 506(ii) of IPC. After completion of investigation, they filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court for the offences under Sections 9(u), 9(l), 9(m) r/w. 10, 11(iii) r/w. 12 of the POCSO Act & Section 506(ii) of IPC.

3. In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 and marked documents in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. On the side of the appellant, he examined D.W.1 to D.W.5 and marked documents in Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4. On the side of the prosecution material objects were also produced in M.O.1 & M.O.2. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidences, the Trial Court found the appellant guilty for the offences under Sections 9(u), 9(l), 9(m) r/w. 10, 11(iii) r/w. 12 of the POCSO Act & Section 506(ii) of IPC and sentenced him as follows :-

All the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the present appeal.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond any doubt. Therefore, benefit of doubt has to be given to the appellant. The entire complaint has been foisted due to the previous enmity between the appellant and the victim’s family and hence, a false case has been foisted as against the appellant. The victim was examined as P.W.1 and her father was examined as P.W.2. The father of the victim had seen the daughter of one Mani while she was taking bath for which there was a panchayat held as against him. During the panchayat, the appellant herein slapped the father of the victim, due to which the father of the victim vacated his house and changed his residence. Therefore, in order to wreak vengeance as against the appellant, the victim herein was tutored to that extent and a false case has been