JUDGMENT : R. Hemalatha , J. (Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment and order, dated 20.12.2018 made in Spl.S.C.No.10 of 2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) Mahila Court, Theni.) 1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.12.2018 in Spl.S.C.No.10 of 2016 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni, in and by which, the appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The prosecution theory runs thus: i. The appellant was married to Malar (P.W-1) and they were blessed with a girl baby 'x' (the victim). P.W-1 is the third wife of the appellant. His first and second wives are no more. Through the first wife, the appellant has three children. All of them were residing together in Murugan Kovil street, Muthuthevanpatti Village along with the mother of the appellant. ii. On 19.07.2015 at about 10.00 p.m, when the girl child 'x' aged 2 years was sleeping in a cradle in their house, the appellant was found by Malar (P.W-1), sucking the private parts of the child. When P.W-1 confronted the appellant, the appellant threatened her with dire consequences. iii. On 20.07.2015, P.W-1 took her child to Theni Government Medical College Hospital where Dr.Santhanalakshmi examined the child and admitted her as an inpatient. iv. Tmt.Neelavani (P.W-13), Sub Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Theni, as per the orders of the Deputy Superintendent of Police proceeded to Theni Government Medical College Hospital on 21.07.2015 at about 11.30 hours and recorded the statement of the child's mother Malar (P.W-1) in the presence of Child Welfare Committee member and thereafter came down to the police station and registered an FIR in Crime No. 22/15 for the offences punishable under Sections 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and Sections 323 and 506 Part I IPC against the appellant. She sent the FIR (Ex.P8) to Mahila Court, which reached the Court on 21.07.2015 at about 7.00 p.m., as could be seen from the endorsement made thereon. She sent the FIR (Ex.P8) to Mahila Court, which reached the Court on 21.07.2015 at about 7.00 p.m., as could be seen from the endorsement made thereon. She then placed the entire records to Tmt.Muthulakshmi (P.W-14), Inspector of Police for further investigation. v. P.W-14 took up investigation in All Women Police Station Crime No.22/15, went to the scene of offence and prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P2) in the presence of Thiru.Sannasi (P.W-2) and a rough sketch(Ex.P9). On the same day, she arrested the appellant near Veerapandi auto stand and produced him before the concerned Court for judicial custody. vi. In the meanwhile, P.W-14 also sent a requisition letter to the Hospital for medical examination of the child on 21.07.2015. Dr.K.G.Juliana Jeyanthi (P.W-11) examined the child on 21.07.2015 and noted the following: “The person examined was moderately built and moderately nourished. Her physical and mental status were normal for her age alleged. Pervaginal examination, Hymen-intact, Tenderness+. Labioum mojora and minora were red and oedematous. Redness in the vulva++” The certificate of examination of sexual offence was marked as Ex.P6. vii. P.W-6 also collected vaginal swab/smear and sent the same to the Forensic Lab through police. The appellant was also subjected to medical examination and he was sent to Theni Government Medical College Hospital, Theni on 01.08.2015 along with Tmt.Kalaiselvi(P.W-5) Head Constable of Police and Thiru. Rajkumar (P.W-8) Constable of Police. viii. Dr.Arumkumar(P.W-6) examined the appellant and collected his saliva and blood and handed over the same to Tmt.Kalaiselvi (P.W-5) for onward submission to Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai, for analysis. According to Dr.Arunkumar(P.W-6), the appellant's physical and mental status were normal and his secondary sexual characters, scrotum and penis are well developed. The certificate issued by Dr.Arunkumar (P.W-6) was marked as Ex.P3. ix. Tmt.Srividhya (P.W-12), Judicial Magistrate, Theni, recorded the statement of Malar (P.W-1) under Section 164 Cr.P.C., as per the orders of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court and sent the said statement (Ex.P7) to Mahila Court. x. Tmt.Muthulakshmi (P.W-14) examined the witnesses and collected reports from the doctors and experts. After completing investigation, she filed the final report before the Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni, against the appellant for the offences under Sections 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and Section 506 Part I IPC. xi. x. Tmt.Muthulakshmi (P.W-14) examined the witnesses and collected reports from the doctors and experts. After completing investigation, she filed the final report before the Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni, against the appellant for the offences under Sections 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and Section 506 Part I IPC. xi. The learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni, took up the case on file in Spl.S.C.No.10/2016 and framed charges under Sections 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 and Section 506 Part I IPC against the appellant. Since the appellant pleaded not guilty, the case was posted for trial. xii. In order to establish the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and marked 10 documents. xiii. When the appellant was questioned with regard to the circumstances appearing in evidence against him under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he simply denied of having committed any offence. However, he did not examine any witness on his side. xiv. The learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni, after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides, found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, and convicted and sentenced him to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment. Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the present appeal is filed by the appellant along with a petition to condone the delay of 136 days in filing the appeal, in Crl.M.P(MD)No.6174 of 2019. The delay was condoned by this Court, vide orders dated 08.07.2019. 3. Heard Mr.G.S.Senthilkumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 4. Before going into the appreciation of evidence, it is relevant to note that a copy of the Accident Register, recorded by Dr.Santhanalakshmi on 20.07.2015 when the victim child was brought by her mother to Theni Medical College Hospital, was not marked as an exhibit. Dr.Santhanalakshmi was not also examined on the side of the prosecution. This arose suspicion in the mind of the Court in the light of the arguments put forth on the appellant's side. Dr.Santhanalakshmi was not also examined on the side of the prosecution. This arose suspicion in the mind of the Court in the light of the arguments put forth on the appellant's side. There were also apparent inconsistencies in the timings mentioned by Dr.K.G.Juliana Jeyanthi (P.W-11) regarding the examination of the child and mentioning of the requisition letter of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni, which was in fact dated 17.08.2015 in the certificate of examination of sexual offence (Ex.P6). Furthermore, in Ex.P6, there is a reference about the Crime No.22/15 of All Women Police Station, Theni. As per Ex.P6, the certificate was signed at about 12.00 p.m. whereas the FIR was registered only at 1.30 p.m. All these discrepancies made us to clarify on the veracity of the documentary evidence presented by the prosecution. The seriousness of the charge against the appellant prompted us to call for the records, particularly, Accident Register from the Theni Government Medical College Hospital. We thought it fit to examine Dr.Santhanalakshmi, who examined the child at the first instance and made entries in the Accident Register. We also wanted to recall Dr.K.G.Juliana Jeyanthi(P.W-11) and the Investigating Officer (P.W-14) for clarification on the aspects referred to above under Section 391 Cr.P.C. 5. Accordingly, all the three of them were summoned by this Court under Section 391 Cr.P.C. and they appeared before this Court on 22.08.2022. Simultaneously, the Accident Register was also summoned by us. Dr.Santhanalakshmi was examined as C.W1. P.W-11 and P.W-14 were also examined on the same date. Evidence was taken by us in the open Court in the presence of the appellant and his counsel. Dr.Santhanalakshmi, in her evidence had deposed that she examined the victim child at about 5.50 p.m. on 20.07.2015 and noted down the following in the Accident Register (Ex.C1): “Alleged history of sexual abuse by her own father under the influence of ganja at around 10.00 p.m., on 19.7.2015 at her own house at Pandian Mill, Muthuthevanpatti, Theni. Informant-mother. On examination, patient conscious oriented Afebrile. CVS- Cardio Vascular System:-S1, S2 plus. RS(Respiratory System) NBVS-Normal Vesicular Breath sound. Local Examination:No bleeding P/V(per vagina at present) Admit the baby in labour ward under DAPP(Duty Assistant Paediatric Physician)” 6. A copy of the Accident Register was marked as Ex.C1. Informant-mother. On examination, patient conscious oriented Afebrile. CVS- Cardio Vascular System:-S1, S2 plus. RS(Respiratory System) NBVS-Normal Vesicular Breath sound. Local Examination:No bleeding P/V(per vagina at present) Admit the baby in labour ward under DAPP(Duty Assistant Paediatric Physician)” 6. A copy of the Accident Register was marked as Ex.C1. After perusing the original Accident Register, which the Dean of Theni Government Medical College Hospital had sent, a copy of Ex.C1 was furnished to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel for the appellant and an opportunity was given to the learned counsel for the appellant to cross examine C.W1. 7. Dr.K.G.Juliana Jeyanthi (P.W-11) was asked to clarify with regard to Ex.P6. The following questions put forth by this Court and the answers given by P.W-11 are extracted hereunder: “Q : In this case did you issue the certificate of examination for sexual offence dated 21.07.2015 (Ex.P6)? Ans : Yes. I have issued. Q : In the preamble portion of your certificate of examination for sexual offence dated 21.07.2015 (Ex.P6), you have stated as follows: “Regarding the appearance of a female aged about 2 years, named Vasanthi, daughter of Suresh, L.S.Copykottai mill, Veerapandi, Theni. Requisition received at 11.50 a.m., on 21.07.2015 from the Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni with his letter/memo D.No.675/15 dated 17.08.2015 Crime No.22/15 under Section 10 of POCSO Act,2012 and Sections 323 and 506(i) IPC of All Women Police Station, Theni, of and accompanied by No.W.Gr.I.1683 name Kalaiselvi of All women Police Station, Theni.” Q: Please clarify as to whether, did you receive a requisition at 11.50 a.m., on 21.07.2015? Ans: From the records received from the Government Theni Medical College and Hospital, Theni, I find that I have received a requisition at 11.50 a.m., on 21.07.2015 from the Inspector of Police, AWPS, Theni. The same is marked as Ex.C2. This Court perused the original requisition that was received from the office of the Dean, Government Theni Medical College Hospital and after taking a photocopy of the same for the purposes of marking as Ex.C2 and for furnishing it to the learned counsel for the appellant & APP, the original is sent back to the Government Hospital. Q: Did you receive any requisition from the Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni, on 21.07.2015? Ans: No, I did not receive such any requisition. Q: Did you receive any requisition from the Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni, on 21.07.2015? Ans: No, I did not receive such any requisition. Q: Why you have stated so in your preamble of your certificate of examination for sexual offence dated 21.07.2015 (Ex.P6)? Ans: I have stated inadvertently and it is a typographical error. Q: The child whom you examined on 21.07.2015 was already as inpatient in the Hospital? Ans: Yes.” The learned counsel for the appellant cross examined this witness also. 8. Similarly the questions put to Tmt.Muthulakshmi(P.W-14), Inspector of Police and her answers are extracted hereunder: “Q: Did you record the statement of Dr.Santhanalakshmi during investigation? Ans: I did not examine Dr.Santhanalakshmi during investigation. Q: Is there any special reason for that? Ans: There is no special reason for it. However, even in the FIR (Ex.P8), it is stated that Ms.Neelaveni, Sub-Inspector of Police, AWPS, Theni, received intimation from the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police at 11.30 a.m., on 21.07.2015 about the admission of the victim child in this case in the Government Medical College and Hospital, Theni, for treatment pursuant to which Neelaveni went to the Hospital and recorded the statement of Malar (P.W-1) and based on that, FIR was registered. Q: Did you collect the copy of the Accident Register from the Government Medical College and Hospital, Theni? Ans: The Case Diary (CD) shows that AR copy has been collected. Q: Why did you not file the AR copy along with the final report in this case? Ans: A mistake has been committed.” The learned counsel for the appellant cross examined this witness also. 9. Thereafter, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by this Court on 24.08.2022, with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him. He denied of having committed any offence and further added that his 2 year old child (victim) was playing in a outdoor play area filled with sand and at that time she was not wearing any inner garments. His wife (P.W-1) cleaned up the child with a piece of cloth. According to him, the reddishness and swelling in and around the genitals of the child was caused by rubbing of the cloth on the sand particles stuck to the private parts. He did not examine any witness on his side. 10. His wife (P.W-1) cleaned up the child with a piece of cloth. According to him, the reddishness and swelling in and around the genitals of the child was caused by rubbing of the cloth on the sand particles stuck to the private parts. He did not examine any witness on his side. 10. The case of the prosecution is that this case pertains to the alleged sexual assault of a two year old child by her own father. It is shocking to know that the victim was an infant born to the appellant. Dr.K.G.Juliana Jeyanthi(P.W-11), who examined the child found that the private parts of the child were reddish and swollen. The doctor has confirmed that it is possible due to the act of forcible licking or sucking. According to P.W-1, the mother of the child, the swelling and reddishness were due to the forcible sucking of the private parts of the child by her father. 11. Thiru.Murugan (P.W-3) and Tmt.Pappathi (P.W-7), who belong to the same village were also examined on the side of the prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the appellant. While Tmt.Pappathi (P.W-7) turned hostile to the prosecution, Thiru.Murugan (P.W-3) had deposed that P.W-1 and the appellant used to quarrel with each other and he came to know that the appellant sexually abused his own daughter. 12. Tmt.Malar (P.W-1), in her chief examination on 09.06.2016 had deposed that when her child aged two years, was sleeping in her house, she saw her husband (the appellant) sucking the private parts of the child and also inserting his fingers in her genitals. Her further deposition is that when she confronted her husband, he threatened her with dire consequences and therefore, she lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) with the All Women Police Station, Theni. It is pertinent to point out that P.W-1 was not cross examined on the same date and on the contrary, she was recalled and cross examined on 04.02.2017 and again on 16.05.2017. Malar (P.W-1) stood like a rock during the cross examination on 04.02.2017, but, thereafter, she was won over and did not support the prosecution case in the cross examination on 16.05.2017. This will not, in any manner, affect her earlier evidence in the light of Section 154(2) of the Evidence Act. 13. Malar (P.W-1) stood like a rock during the cross examination on 04.02.2017, but, thereafter, she was won over and did not support the prosecution case in the cross examination on 16.05.2017. This will not, in any manner, affect her earlier evidence in the light of Section 154(2) of the Evidence Act. 13. In the complaint (Ex.P1), P.W-1 had mentioned about the burn injury caused by cigarette butt on the leg of the child by the appellant. However, this aspect was not spoken to by P.W-1 in her deposition. The clarification from Dr.K.G.Juliana Jeyanthi (P.W-11), who examined the child was that it was only the scar of an old burn injury. The cause of the burn injury was not further gone into. It is difficult to believe that the old burn injury on the child's leg could have been due to some other reason, especially, when P.W-1 had stated that when she went to the police station for giving a complaint with regard to the burn injury on a previous occasion, she was sent back by the police stating that the burn injury had healed and cannot be taken cognizance. 14. Mr. G.S.Senthilkumar, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the earlier complaints by P.W-1 against the appellant did not disclose the alleged misbehaviour of the appellant with his child. He also pointed out the serious lacuna in the dates of the incident and consequent admission in the hospital. All these are explained as typographical errors by Dr. K.G.Juliana Jeyanthi(P.W-11), when we examined her in this Court. The Investigating Officer, on her part, has stated that it is a mistake committed by her during the course of investigation. It is most unfortunate to know such typographical errors are made in POCSO Act cases. 15. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that P.W-1 being the third wife of the appellant was nursing a grudge against her husband for the support extended by him to his children through his first wife. P.W-1 during the course of cross examination on 16.05.2017, had deposed that there was no cradle in her house and her infant child used to sleep on the floor. This aspect was also emphasized by the learned counsel for the appellant. P.W-1 during the course of cross examination on 16.05.2017, had deposed that there was no cradle in her house and her infant child used to sleep on the floor. This aspect was also emphasized by the learned counsel for the appellant. It was contended that the complaint (Ex.P1) states that the incident happened when the baby was in the cradle, while no such cradle was existed in the house of P.W-1. 16. Per contra, Mr. A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the glaring fact that the sexual assault of the two year old infant, that too, by her own father is very disturbing. In such a scenario doubting the credibility of the mother of the victim child and picking up holes in the prosecution theory is unfair. According to him, such crimes committed by an outsider is different from that committed by the child's own father. His further contention is that P.W-1 had also deposed that her husband used to carry the child and fondle her often. This act of putting his mouth on the private parts of the two year old child as described by P.W-1 is also supported by the medical evidence. 17. It is true that a two year old girl child cannot speak for herself. A father, who is expected to protect his child, had behaved in an abnormal manner. Merely because P.W-1 did not mention in her earlier complaint against the appellant about the sexual abuse, it does not make him innocent. Dr. Santhanalakshmi (C.W-1), who examined the victim child immediately after the occurrence, has stated in the cross examination that while examining the private parts of the child, the child was so petrified that she started crying. There cannot be a better illustration of the trauma undergone by the child. 18. POCSO Act was enacted to save our children and to ensure a safe society for them. But little would have been thought about the father committing such a crime against his own child. The provisions of POCSO Act and punishments thereon are very stringent. It is true that despite of these provisions, the sexual offences against the children keep growing day-by-day in an alarming manner. The entire legal system has ensured systematic and professional approach towards such offence. The prosecution, in the instant case has substantiated the guilt of the appellant as per Sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Act. It is true that despite of these provisions, the sexual offences against the children keep growing day-by-day in an alarming manner. The entire legal system has ensured systematic and professional approach towards such offence. The prosecution, in the instant case has substantiated the guilt of the appellant as per Sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Act. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract Sections 29 and 30 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, which read as under: "29.Presumption as to certain offences: Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under sections 3, 5, 7 and section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be, unless the contrary is proved." 30. Presumption of culpable mental state: 1) In any prosecution for any offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the Special Court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution. (2) For the purposes of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the Special Court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability.” Thus, Section 29 provides that where a person is prosecuted for violating any of the provisions under Sections 3, 5, 7 and Section 9 of the Act, the Special Court shall presume that such person has committed the offence, unless the contrary is proved. Section 30 provides for presumption of 'culpable mental state' which includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact and belief in, or reason to belief in, a fact. The above said presumptions had not been rebutted by the appellant by adducing acceptable evidence or by shattering the evidence of the prosecution witness. 19. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that as per Section 30 of the POCSO Act, the appellant did not have the 'mental state' to commit the crime, which would attract the provisions of the POCSO Act. 19. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that as per Section 30 of the POCSO Act, the appellant did not have the 'mental state' to commit the crime, which would attract the provisions of the POCSO Act. In order to emphasis this, he also drew the attention of this Court to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai (Ex.P4) which stated that no saliva or blood was detected in the swab/smear collected from the private parts of the child. In this regard, it is appropriate to extract Section 3(d) of the POCSO Act as under: “Section 3 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 : Penetrative sexual assault: (d) he applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, anus, urethra of the child or makes the child to do so to such person or any other person.” 20. Another contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is taking care of the child and that the mother of the child (P.W-1) abandoned the child and is working elsewhere. In this regard, we summoned the report of the social welfare officer. 21. Mrs. S.Pothumani, Legal cum Probation Officer, District Child Protection Commtitee, Theni, produced the file. The child was initially admitted in 'Manitha Neya Kapagam', Kodangipatti, Theni District as per the orders of the Child Welfare Committee, under Section 36(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 and thereafter, she was taken out from the said home by the mother of the child, Malar (P.W-1). According to Mrs.S.Pithumani, the victim child is now with her paternal grandmother. The learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Theni directed the District Collector, Theni to award a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the victim child and further directed to deposit a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- in State Bank of India in her name till she attains majority and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to be kept in the Savings Banks Account [A/c No.39082885091] of the child with her mother as a guardian. 22. Mrs.S.Pothumani also contended that as per the directions of the Court, they have deposited the amount and that the mother of the child is now working in a tea estate in a nearby hillock and the child is under the care and custody of the mother of the appellant. 22. Mrs.S.Pothumani also contended that as per the directions of the Court, they have deposited the amount and that the mother of the child is now working in a tea estate in a nearby hillock and the child is under the care and custody of the mother of the appellant. Merely because the appellant is providing money for the upbringing of the child, he cannot be shown any mercy and that too, in a case under POCSO Act. Hence, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court Judge, in our opinion, cannot be interfered with. 23. Moreover, in the trial Court, he did not explain anything about the injury sustained by the child in the private part but when he was questioned by us with regard to P.W-11's evidence under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he stated that sand particles got stuck to the private parts of the child while she was playing in the sand without wearing any undergarments and that his wife (P.W-1) cleaned the sand particles with a piece of cloth and applied oil. This explanation is palpably a false one. A false answer given by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is a powerful circumstance against him in the light of the decisions in Mani Kumar Thapa vs. State of Sikkim [ 2002 (7) SCC 157 ] and Anthony D'souza and others vs. State of Karnataka [2003 (1) SCC 259], wherein it is stated that if the statement of the appellant made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is palpably false and there is cogent evidence adduced by the prosecution to show that the injury inflicted on the victim was by the appellant, the Court will have to proceed on the basis that the appellant has not explained the inculpating circumstances established by the prosecution against him which would form an additional link in the chain of circumstances. Hence, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 24. In the result, i. This Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ii. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Theni, in Spl.S.C.No.10 of 2016, dated 20.12.2018, is hereby confirmed. iii. The respondent police is directed to secure the accused and produce him before the trial Court and the trial Court is directed to commit the appellant to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.