JUDGMENT : P. DEVADASS, J. 1. The sole accused in the Special Sessions Case in Spl. S.C.No.15 of 2015 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ariyalur seeks suspension of his sentence of imprisonment. 2. In the said Court, after trial, he was convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Section 354C IPC R.I for one year and fine Rs.1,000/-, i/d 2 months S.I Section 450 IPC R.I for 3 years and fine Rs.2,000/-, i/d 6 months S.I Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) R.I for 10 years and fine Rs.5,000/-, i/d 1 year R.I All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. PWs.1 and 6 are daughters of PWs.2 and 3. PW-6 is adult, while PW-1 was then below 14 years old (As per Section 2(d) POCSO Act, a 'child' is below 18 years). They are residing in Chinnavalayam village in Ariyalur District. The accused is their neighbour. His father is a brother to PW-1's father/PW-3. So the accused is brother to PWs.1 and 6. They are in prohibited degree of relationship because of consanguinity. 4. The accused is alleged to have committed voyeurism with reference to PW-6 and committed sexual assault on PW-1. PW-1 is the victim. PW-16, a lady Doctor, tendered corroborative medical evidence. Placing reliance on the prosecution evidence, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as stated already. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant contended that because of previous enmity using his daughters PWs.1 and 6, PW-3 has foisted this case against the accused. There are material contradictions in the FIR, statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. from PW-1 and the evidence of main prosecution witnesses. They are interested witnesses also. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the evidence of PW-1 that she had nail markings stand contradicted by the medical evidence of PW-17. The medical evidence is also not clinching in this case. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that there is significant delay in lodging the FIR. The prosecution witnesses cannot be believed. There is prima facie case in favour of the accused. He is in jail for a longtime. In the circumstances, he may be granted appeal bail. 8. The prosecution side filed counter. 9. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that there is significant delay in lodging the FIR. The prosecution witnesses cannot be believed. There is prima facie case in favour of the accused. He is in jail for a longtime. In the circumstances, he may be granted appeal bail. 8. The prosecution side filed counter. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that this prosecution is not for an offence under Section 376 IPC. It is under certain penal provisions of POCSO Act. There is minute distinction between both the penal statutes. 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that there is clear cut evidence of the victim that she has been subjected to sexual assault. There is medical evidence. There is no acceptable motive to reject the testimony of the victim. There is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. This case is not a fit case for grant of appeal bail. 11. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the averments in the appeal bail petition, counter filed by the prosecution, Trial Court's judgment and the piece of evidence referred to by both side and the relevant materials on record. 12. In the facts and circumstances, now the question is whether the petitioner could be granted appeal bail under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. 13. To grant bail pending consideration of Criminal Appeal, the Appellate Court cannot indulge in meticulous examination of the entire evidence which is to be done at the time of hearing the main Criminal Appeal. However, for the purpose of granting the relief of appeal bail, the Court must see is there any prima facie case in favour of the accused. For this purpose, the Appellate Court has to refer to the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the relevant piece of evidence. It must also take into account the nature of the accusations, the gravity of the offence alleged. 14. In case of sexual violence committed against the women and children, the testimony of a victim has to be considered as the testimony of an injured witness. To accept it, as a rule, corroboration need not be insisted upon. But, the evidence of such a witness must be consistent, cogent, unimpeachable. 14. In case of sexual violence committed against the women and children, the testimony of a victim has to be considered as the testimony of an injured witness. To accept it, as a rule, corroboration need not be insisted upon. But, the evidence of such a witness must be consistent, cogent, unimpeachable. However, to reject the testimony of such a witness, it must be established either by independent evidence or culling out from the prosecution evidence that there is strong motive to implicate the accused so as to reject the testimony of the victim, in other words, the evidence of the victim is not unimpeachable. 15. For an offence under Section 375 IPC punishable under Section 376 IPC, the prosecution has to produce much more positive medical evidence. Of course the explanation to Section 375 IPC saves the prosecution from this rigorous requirement for the phrase 'sexual intercourse' employed in the First Part of Section 375 IPC to some extent, so also the victim to save her womanhood. However, prosecuting an accused under POCSO Act is different because the outlook of the enactment and perspective of a sexual offence, sexual assault vide Section 2(i) read with Section 7 of POCSO Act is different. The penal provision under the POCSO Act is very wide because the phraseology employed therein is such that. 16. A reading of Sections 2(i), 7, 5 and 6 POCSO Act would show that if a sexual violence is committed upon a child below 18 years, it is not necessary that she should have been subjected to actual sexual intercourse. Even any act committed upon a child with sexual intent just involving a physical act even without penetration will become an offence/sexual assault. Further as per Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, the culpability of the accused with such mens rea (sexual intent) has to be presumed. Of course, Section 30 (2) of the Act, preserves the basic principle of Criminal Law alive and the 'presumption' is also 'rebuttable' (see Section 29, POCSO Act). 17. Now reverting to the case at our hand, the testimony of the child/PW-1/victim is very important. Her testimony is that on 1.8.2015 on a Saturday at about 2.30 noon while she was alone in her house the accused put her under fear, committed sexual assault upon her. 17. Now reverting to the case at our hand, the testimony of the child/PW-1/victim is very important. Her testimony is that on 1.8.2015 on a Saturday at about 2.30 noon while she was alone in her house the accused put her under fear, committed sexual assault upon her. So far as the voyeurism perpetrated with reference to PW-6 she could not aware of it, PW-1 is made to aware of it and as per the prosecution version the physical, software evidence is stated to have been effaced by the accused subsequent to his commission of sexual assault upon PW-1. 18. During the occurrence time, PW-1, a child while she was alone in her house, it is alleged that she was subjected to, aggravated penetrative sexual assault. (See Sections 5 and 6 POCSO Act). It is the evidence of PW-1 that the accused put her under fear of causing her harm and spoiling the name of her elder sister/PW-6 and the accused subjected her to sexual intercourse. PW-16, a female Doctor, after examining PW-1 given positive medical evidence with regard to the physical contact to which PW-1 had been subjected to. 19. A reading of the evidence of PW-1 corroborated by PWs.2 and 3 would show the substratum of the prosecution version of the case stated in Ex.P-1 complaint which has been consistently spoken to by them. 20. The date of occurrence is on 1.8.2015. PW-8 is a friend of the accused. On the next day morning, according to PW-8, the accused told him that he had ravished PW-1. PW-8 revealed this to his relative PW-7, who revealed this to PW-2, the mother of PW-1. Thereafter, on the next day, namely on 3.8.2015, police complaint had been lodged by the girl's family. Normally in this type of cases, delay is understandable. Now in this case, the delay in lodging the FIR has been explained. 21. The motive suggested is that since PW-2 had illegal intimacy with the father of the accused the enraged PW-3 had implicated the accused. This motive besides being feeble, in the facts and circumstances, will not take one to its logical end. 22. In view of the foregoings, I find that there is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to grant him appeal bail. 23. Thus, this petition is dismissed. This motive besides being feeble, in the facts and circumstances, will not take one to its logical end. 22. In view of the foregoings, I find that there is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to grant him appeal bail. 23. Thus, this petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the observations in this order have been made only for the limited purpose to find out a prima facie case in this appeal bail petition and it has nothing to do with the consideration of the main Criminal Appeal.