JUDGMENT : P. VELMURUGAN, J. 1. This appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgment and Conviction passed in Spl. S.C. No. 33 of 2018 dated 15.04.2019 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Tiruppur. 2. The respondent police registered a case against the appellant for the offence under Sections 341, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of [Harassment of Woman] Act, 1998. After investigation, the respondent laid a charge-sheet before the Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur for the offence under Sections 341, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 7 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The learned Special Judge, taken the charge-sheet on file in Spl. S.C. No. 33 of 2018 and after completing the formalities, framed charges against the appellant for the offence under Sections 341, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 7 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 3. After framing of the charges, during trial, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 5 witnesses were examined as PW-1 to PW-5 and 6 exhibits were marked as Exs.P1 to P6. No material object was marked. After completing the examination of the prosecution witnesses, incriminating circumstances were culled out from the prosecution witnesses and put before the appellant/accused, he denied the same as false. On the side of the defence no oral evidence were adduced and one document was exhibited as Ex.D1. 4. After completing the trial and after hearing the arguments advanced on either side, the trial Court found guilty of the appellant/accused for the offence under Sections 341, 506(ii) IPC and also Section 7 of POCSO Act and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 341 IPC, to undergo 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default, to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC, to undergo 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 which is punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 5. 5,000/- in default to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 which is punishable under Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has suppressed the counter case lodged by the appellant, which falsify the case of the prosecution in this case. Originally, the case was registered only for the offence under Sections 341 and 354 IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of [Harassment of Woman] Act, 1998 and there was no case registered under the POCSO Act and there is a delay in filing the complaint by the PW-2. The alleged occurrence said to have taken place on 22.10.2015 at about 8.30 a.m. whereas the complaint was given only on 23.10.2015 at about 12.15 p.m. Earlier, there was a counter case against the five persons given by the appellant herein and the said FIR has also been marked as Ex.D1, which clearly shows that on 22.10.2015 at about 8.45 a.m. the appellant was assaulted by five known persons and he was admitted in the hospital. The Investigating Officer also admitted the same during the cross examination that on 23.10.2015 at about 9.00 a.m. the information was received from the Government Hospital, Tiruppur and one of the police official went to the Government Hospital, Tiruppur and recorded the statement from the appellant/accused. Thereafter, case was registered on the complaint given by the appellant against the five known persons only after registering the FIR in the present case. As per Ex.D1, even though the information received on 23.10.2015 from the Government Hospital at about 9.00 a.m. in the FIR, they have stated that the information received only at 13.15 hours which clearly shows that only after filing the complaint by the appellant, in order to escape from the clutches of law, they set up the victim girl and lodged the present complaint against the appellant, which clearly shows that there is no occurrence said to have taken place under the POCSO Act. Further, PW-1 the victim girl and PW-2 the de facto complainant have stated that only at the time of occurrence one Naveen, who belongs to the said village, informed the occurrence to PW-2. Further, PW-1 the victim girl and PW-2 the de facto complainant have stated that only at the time of occurrence one Naveen, who belongs to the said village, informed the occurrence to PW-2. PW-1 victim girl stated that at the time of occurrence, one Naveen along with 5 persons and villagers came to the scene of occurrence to rescue her. But in this case, neither the said Naveen nor the other persons were examined as witnesses. After the occurrence, the villagers sent the victim girl to the school and the victim narrated the occurrence to her class teacher, in-turn the class teacher asked the victim to intimate about the occurrence to the Principal and Principal called the parents of the victim and informed them about the occurrence and thereafter, the complaint was given. But in this case, neither the class teacher nor the Principal was examined to prove that on the date of the occurrence, the victim girl informed about the incident to the class teacher, who in turn informed the Principal about the incident. Therefore, the non-examination of the Class teacher of the victim girl and the Principal of the school were fatal to the prosecution case. Even in Ex.D1, the appellant admitted that he had gone to the grocery shop in the nearby town, at that time, he asked the name of the victim girl. The appellant/accused, when returned from the grocery shop, the known accused in Crime No. 726 of 2015 way laid him and took the goods from him and also assaulted the appellant/accused, due to which, he sustained injuries and admitted in the Government Hospital. The police official, after receiving the intimation, went to the hospital and recorded the statement from the appellant. After coming to know about this, all the accused in that case set up the victim girl and PW-2 and foisted the alleged complaint against the appellant. The relevant portion of deposition of PW-5 Investigating Officer in his cross-examination is as follows: OTHERS LANGUAGE 6. From the evidence of PW-5 Investigating Officer clearly shows that the information received in Crime No. 726 of 2015 on 23.10.2015 at about 9.00 hours itself, whereas the information regarding the present case in Crime No. 725 of 2015 received only at 12.45 hours. From the evidence of PW-5 Investigating Officer clearly shows that the information received in Crime No. 726 of 2015 on 23.10.2015 at about 9.00 hours itself, whereas the information regarding the present case in Crime No. 725 of 2015 received only at 12.45 hours. Therefore, the counter case filed only subsequent to the present case, which itself shows that a false case was foisted against the appellant in order to escape from the clutches of law and therefore, they took the POCSO Act to curtail the appellant. Even though in the complaint of the PW-2, nowhere the ingredients or commission of the POCSO Act were stated, whereas the same was subsequently included at the time of investigation, there is no material available to show that the appellant has committed the offence. The learned trial Judge failed to consider the above facts and erroneously convicted the appellant, which warrants interference. 7. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that at the time of occurrence, the age of the victim girl was only 15 years and she was studying in X standard at Kongu Vellalar Matriculation Higher Secondary School at Vellakovil. When she had gone to school, the appellant waylaid her and stated that she looks very beautiful and he wanted to marry her. The appellant also threatened her that if she did not accept to marry the appellant, he will kill her and also pulled her hand. Therefore, she shouted and one Naveen and five others came to the place of occurrence and on seeing them, the appellant left the scene of occurrence. The villagers, who gathered at the place of occurrence, helped the victim girl to reach the school. Subsequently, after registering the case, the respondent police investigated the matter and laid a charge-sheet. The date of birth of the victim girl is 20.10.2000 and the date of occurrence is 22.10.2015 and therefore, the appellant committed the offence under Section 7 of POCSO Act on the minor girl. The de facto complainant, who is the co-brother of the father of the victim girl was examined as PW-2 and he deposed that one Naveen informed him about the occurrence and thereafter, he preferred the complaint. The evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 clearly show that the appellant had committed the offence under Sections 341 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 7 of POCSO Act. The evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 clearly show that the appellant had committed the offence under Sections 341 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 7 of POCSO Act. In this case, there is no need to produce the victim girl for medical examination and the cases like this, victim's evidence is enough. The prosecution established its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence before it and convicted the accused for the offence as stated above. There is no reason to interfere in the judgment of the trial Court. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing on behalf of the respondent. Perused the entire materials available on record. 9. The specific case of the prosecution is that the victim girl was studying X standard at Kongu Vellalar Matriculation Higher Secondary School at Vellakovil. On 22.10.2015 at about 8.40 a.m. when the victim girl was going to her school in her bicycle towards east to west near Sadaiyappa Nagar water tank, the appellant/accused, who came on that way, way laid the victim and forcefully pulled her hand by saying that she looks very beautiful and he wants to marry her and committed sexual assault on the minor child. Therefore, the case was registered against the appellant for the offence under Sections 341 and 506(ii) IPC. The victim was examined as PW-1 and she has stated that she was 15 years at the time of occurrence and she came to know the appellant only at the time of occurrence. Except PW-1, no one was examined to prove the occurrence. PW-1 was staying at the house of the de facto complainant/PW-2, who is the uncle of the victim girl. PW-2 deposed that one Naveen informed about the occurrence and thereafter, he preferred the complaint. PW-1 has stated that at the time of the occurrence, one Naveen and five persons came there and on seeing them, the appellant/accused left the place of occurrence. The prosecution has not examined the said Naveen to corroborate the evidence of PW-1. According to the defence, when the appellant/accused went to the grocery shop, on the way he saw the victim and he only asked her name. Since she did not respond, the appellant/accused left the place and went to grocery shop. The prosecution has not examined the said Naveen to corroborate the evidence of PW-1. According to the defence, when the appellant/accused went to the grocery shop, on the way he saw the victim and he only asked her name. Since she did not respond, the appellant/accused left the place and went to grocery shop. At that time, five persons waylaid the appellant and attacked him for talking with the victim. Thereafter, he was admitted in Government Hospital. The information was given to the police and the police came to the Government Hospital and recorded the statement from the appellant/accused. Though in this case, the victim has stated that one Naveen and five other persons came to the place of occurrence and the villagers helped her to reach the school, none of them were examined by the prosecution. The class teacher, who informed about the occurrence to the Principal, who in turn informed the parents of the victim girl were also not examined by the prosecution to prove the occurrence. 10. PW-5 Investigating Officer admitted that on 23.10.2015 at about 9.00 a.m. the police station received the information from the Government Hospital, Tiruppur and went there to recorded the statement of the appellant, whereas Ex.D1-counter complaint clearly shows that on 23.10.2015 the information was received at about 13.15 hours and they registered the case in Crime No. 726 of 2015. The present complaint was registered as Crime No. 725 of 2015 and the information received on 23.10.2015 at about 12.15 hours. After receiving the information in the counter complaint by the appellant at 9.00 a.m. itself, they have not registered the case immediately. Ex.D1 clearly shows that the information received only about 13.15 hours. Further, in the FIR, the commission of offence was mentioned under Section 341, 354 IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of [Harassment of Woman] Act and subsequently, altered into Section 7 of POCSO Act. There is a delay in filing the complaint and the delay has not been properly explained. Further, it is not the case of penetrative sexual assault to produce the victim girl for medical examination and also to produce her before the Judicial Magistrate for recording the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Normally the cases under POCSO Act, the Court will consider the evidence of the victim child alone. The appellant/accused also sustained injuries and admitted in hospital. The appellant/accused also sustained injuries and admitted in hospital. The prosecution has not explained as to how the appellant/accused sustained injuries. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 11. This Court, being the fact finding Court, has to independently appreciate the evidence and give its independent findings. This Court finds that the prosecution miserably failed to substantiate its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The trial Judge failed to appreciate the entire evidence and erred in convicting the appellant/accused, which warrants interference. 12. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed. The judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur, passed in Spl. S.C. No. 33 of 2018 on 15.04.2019, shall stand set aside. The appellant/accused is acquitted of all charges. Fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded. Bail bonds, if any, executed shall stand cancelled.