4.The learned counsel for the Appellant/Accused invited the attention of this Court to the following particulars in evidence of the Prosecution witness. In her evidence, P.W-1 had stated that in the early morning on the date of occurrence, her daughter knocked on the back door. P.W-1 had opened the back door after hearing the sound. P.W-2-victim had stated in her evidence that she called her mother and her mother opened the door. Also P.W-2alleged victim had stated that when she entered the house, her neighbour also was present. P.W-3 is the father of the victim. As per his evidence, on the date of occurrence around 5.30 a.m., P.W-1 and P.W-3 heard a sound, his wife P.W-1 opened the door. Therefore, witnesses P.W-1, P.W-2 and P.W-3 had made contradictory statement regarding the arrival of the victim to the house on the date of occurrence. As per the complaint, the family members came to know about the alleged occurrence on the morning of 27.02.2014. They had preferred a complaint only on 28.02.2014 at about 16 hours. The delay in lodging the complaint had not been explained by the Prosecution. Further, P.W-2 had categorically stated that on the date of occurrence itself P.W-3-father of the victim had caught hold the Appellant/Accused and handed him over to the Police. P.W-14-Investigation Officer in this case had in his evidence deposed that he had arrested the Accused at Ammapettai Police Station. Except P.W-1, P.W-3 and other family members, no other witness had supported the Prosecution. P.W-6 who is the Paternal uncle of the victim had in his evidence deposed that there was love affair between the victim and the Appellant/Accused. Both of them went away from the home and they were caught hold by the family members. In pursuant to the same, the Appellant was handed over to the Police with a cooked-up story. The trial Court failed to consider the statement of the Doctor who had clearly stated that there is no evidence indicating that the victim had sexual intercourse with the Accused. P.W-11Scientific Officer from the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Thanjavur, had deposed that there was no semen in M.O-2 and he could not speak about semen found in the other material objects belonging to the Appellant. It is pertinent to note that the Prosecution has failed to prove the penetration which is essential to convict the Accused under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Appellant/Accused urged this Court to consider the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Thanjavur, as perverse and it has to be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ set aside.
