SATHISH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant/Accused No.1 has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal as against the judgment dated 22.07.2015 in Spl.S.C.No.3 of 2015 (in Cr.No.11 of 2014 on the file of the All Women Police Station, Ariyalur) passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur.

(2.) The Learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur while passing the impugned judgment in Spl.S.C.No.3 of 2015 on 22.07.2015 had come to a resultant conclusion that the Respondent/Prosecution had proved its case against the Appellant/A1 in respect of an offence under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual offence Act, 2012 (punishable under Sec. 8 of the Act) and convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and directed him to pay a fine of Rs.15,000.00 in default of payment of the said fine, he was directed to undergo a further period of 6 months rigorous imprisonment. Moreover, a sum of Rs.10,000.00 out of the fine amount of Rs.15,000.00 imposed on the Appellant/A1 was directed to be paid to the victim/P.W.1 as compensation under Sec. 357 of Crimial P.C. by the trial Court. Further, the trial Court in its judgment had stated that the Appellant/A1 was entitled to set off the period of detention, if any, he had already undergone under Sec. 428 of Cr.P.C.

(3.) Challenging the judgment dated 22.07.2015 in Spl.S.C.No.3 of 2015 passed by the trial Court, the Appellant/A1, as an aggrieved person has focused the present Criminal Appeal, basically contending that the trial Court had not considered the evidence of P.W.2 (in chief examination) to the effect that at the time of so called incidence, P.W.1 did inform her that the identity of the Accused was unknown to her (P.W.1). Also, it is the stand of the Appellant/A1 that the trial Court had incorrectly opined that the identification of the Appellant/A1 by P.W.1 and P.W.2, which were not at all disputed by the Appellant.