Insufficient evidence regarding the victim's age and nature of allegations led to acquittal under POCSO Act, while conviction for outraging modesty under IPC was upheld.

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant-accused questioning the Judgment dated 18.09.2024 passed in S.C.No.1066 of 2019 by the learned Fast Track Special Judge for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Neredmet, wherein the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 9(n) read with Section 10 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the POCSO Act, 2012’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six months.

2. Heard the learned legal aid counsel appearing for the appellant-accused and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and perused the record.

3. The appellant is the father of the victim girl-PW.1 and PW.2 is the mother of PW1 and wife of the appellant. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.04.2019, when the mother of the victim girl went out, the accused went into the room in a drunken condition and asked the victim girl to show the place of injury on her body. The victim girl showed the place of injury on her body. The accused asked her to bring rice grains into another room to apply to the injured area. When PW.1 entered into the other room, the appellant bolted the door and asked the victim girl to show the place of injury once again so that he would apply rice at the place of injury. The appellant asked PW.1 to remove her dress for applying the same but the victim girl refused to show and stated that she would ask her mother to apply medicine. Since the victim girl did not remove her dress, the accused beat her with a belt and out of fear, she removed her dress and then, the accused touched her private parts with his hands. Then the appellant removed his dress. The victim girl got scared and went out by removing the bolt of the door. In the evening at about 7:00 p.m., she informed her mother regarding the act of the accused coming home in a drunken condition and saying that he would apply rice grains to the injuries. PW.2 advised PW.1 to remain silent, since exams were going on. Again after 3-4 days, the accused went to the house in a drunken condition and beat the victim girl-PW.1, her mother-PW.2 and sister (not examined).

4. The complaint was filed on 16.04.2019 i.e., after five days of the incident. On the basis of the complaint filed, during the course of investigation, Police filed petition i.e. Crl.M.P.No.352 of 2018 for the purpose of recording 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victim girl.

5. Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded and thereafter, having concluded the investigation, charge sheet was filed. During the course of trial, the victim girl was examined as PW.1, the mother of the victim as PW.2 and the Police officials as PWs.3 and 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4.

6. The learned Sessions Judge found that the acts of the accused amounts to an offence under Section 9(n) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six months. Against the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal is preferred.

7. The learned legal aid counsel submits that there were differences in the family for which reason, a false complaint was filed against the accused. In fact, there was no such incident that happened on 11.04.2019 and there is no explanation regarding the delay occurred in lodging the complaint after five days from the date of the incident.

8. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that touching the private parts of the girl by the father would amount to an offence under Section 9(n) of the POCSO Act, 2012.

9. As per the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which is marked as Ex.P3, the v