12.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence properly. FIR (Ex.P.6) is not reliable as Parvathy (P.W.2) deposed during the cross examination that he gave the FIR to the Deputy Superintendent of Police but the complaint was received by Navas Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.13). He further contended that according to (P.W.2), the complaint was signed by the victim girl but (Ex.P.1) there is no signature of the victim girl, it creates a doubt about the genuineness of the complaint. The original complaint given by the victim girl was suppressed by the police. The present complaint (Ex.P.1) is seen as signed by the mother of the victim Parvathy (P.W.2). It goes to the root of the prosecution case. Further, the learned counsel contended that (P.W.13) Navas, Sub Inspector of Police, sent the requisition letter (Ex.P.7) on 19.08.2014 to Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri, to appoint the Investigation Officer as the case was registered under SC/ST Act. But, the proceedings issued by Sub Inspector of Police, Dharmapuri, appointing (P.W.19) Annamalai as Investigation Officer was dated 18.08.2014, which was marked as (Ex.P.13) and it shows serious defect in the investigation. The trial Court fails to appreciate this fact, FIR (Ex.P.6) was registered only at 9.30 p.m on 18.8.2014. On the date itself, Annamalai (P.W.19) could not be appointed as the Investigation Officer. Further, according to the evidence of
