JUDGMENT : M.Nirmal Kumar, J. The appellant herein is the accused in Special S.C.No.118 of 2019, who was convicted of the offence under Section 10 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo 5 years of Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.40,000/-, in default of payment of the fine, he shall undergo three months Simple Imprisonment and for the offence under Section 506(i) IPC, one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, three months Simple Imprisonment. Against which, the present appeal is filed. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the respondent police received a complaint from PW.1, the mother of the victim girl and registered a case in Crime No.06 of 2019 on 28.01.2019 for offences under Section 4 of POCSO Act and Section 506(i) of IPC. 3.After registering the case, the statement of the victim (PW.2), the victim's mother (PW.1) and the other witnesses recorded, observation Mahazar and rough sketch drawn in the presence of the witnesses, later the accused arrested, in this case the victim was produced before the Magistrate, statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., recorded on 02.02.2019. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet filed. The trial Court framed charges for offences under Section 8 of POCSO Act and Section 506(i) IPC. 4.During the trial, PW.1 to PW.8 examined and six documents marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. On conclusion of the trial, the trial Court convicted the appellant as stated above. 5.The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is an Electrician. He had a dispute with the defacto complainant regarding the electrical work done and for the payments, due to which, he has been falsely implicated. 6.The contention of the appellant is that the victim girl, along with two of her friends, one of whom appellant's brother's daughter and a relative of the victim went to collect some fruits near the graveyard. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., [Ex.P3], she state that her two friends, who accompanied her saw the appellant. The appellant attempted to cover the mouth of the victim with a towel and attempted to hug and push her down. The victim pushed the appellant and ran for safety. Two of her friends who were there at the time of the alleged incident not examined as witness. 7.The complaint was filed with a delay of 33.00 hours. The appellant attempted to cover the mouth of the victim with a towel and attempted to hug and push her down. The victim pushed the appellant and ran for safety. Two of her friends who were there at the time of the alleged incident not examined as witness. 7.The complaint was filed with a delay of 33.00 hours. The reason for the delay given is that the defacto complainant's husband namely Lourdusamy, had been to Chennai and PW.1 was waiting for his return. However, Lourdusamy neither accompanied the defacto complainant to the police station to lodge the complaint nor he is a witness in this case. 8.The entire case revolves around the victim's statement, she improves her statement at each stage as tutored by her mother, the other witness PW.3, the Chairman of Pastor Committee of the Church and the victim's father is a pastor. PW.4 the brother of the victim and PW.7, a known person. The evidence of these witnesses are contradictory to each other. The appellant as Electrician carried out a work in the house of PW.1 and there is a dispute. The defacto complainant took advantage of the victim girl's age gave a false complaint. 9.PW.3, Pastor Committee Chairman of the church admit that he neither accompanied the victim nor the defacto complainant to the police station and he was informed about the incident only after the complaint was lodged. The victim's brother PW.4 admit that he works in Chennai and he was informed about the incident by PW.1. Likewise PW.7, the Village Head admit that he has no direct knowledge of the occurrence and was informed by PW.1, hence they are in the nature of hearsay 10.PW.5 and PW.6, witnesses to the Observation Mahazar and the rough sketch, admitted that it was around 7.00 p.m., on 28.01.2019, when the observation mahazar was prepared and there was no light available near the scene of occurrence. 11.PW.8, the Investigation Officer admit the delay in lodging the complaint and confirms victim's father, Lourdusamy neither appeared nor a witness in the case. 12.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submits that at each stage, both the defacto complainant and the victim girl improved their statement. Their evidence are with contradiction and the appellant has been falsely implicated. The trial Court failed to consider the vital discrepancies in the case. 12.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submits that at each stage, both the defacto complainant and the victim girl improved their statement. Their evidence are with contradiction and the appellant has been falsely implicated. The trial Court failed to consider the vital discrepancies in the case. Further, in this case non examination of two friends of victim who accompanied the victim to collect fruits and projected as eye witnesses is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 13.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State submits that the defacto complainant [PW.1] is the mother of the victim girl. The victim girl, along with two of her friends went to the backyard to collect some fruits. At the time, the appellant came there when these girls were collecting fruits, the appellant informed there are plenty of fruits near Musthafa garden and took the victim/PW.2 alone. He took the victim to an isolated place and attempted to sexually assault her. The victim girl pushed him down, shouted for help and ran for safety and informed her mother [PW.1], who lodged the complaint. PW.8 received the complaint, registered a case and visited scene of occurrence prepared mahazars in the presence of witness, examined the victim, her mother and others recorded their statements. The accused was arrested and the victim girl was produced before the Magistrate, 164 Cr.P.C., statement recorded, documents collected and the final report filed. The trial Court on the evidence and materials produced convicted the appellant as stated above. 14.Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record. 15.In this case, P.W.1 to P.W.8 examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 marked. The Trial Court based on the evidence of P.W.2 and her mother/P.W.1 held the appellant guilty and convicted him. There is delay of 33.00 hours in lodging the complaint. P.W.1/mother of the victim gives reason that she was waiting for her husband Lourdusamy who was in Chennai to come back to lodge the complaint and in the meanwhile, she met the Chairman of the Pastor Committee/P.W.3 and it is projected that on his advise, she went to the Police Station along with him and lodged the complaint/Ex.P1. On receipt of the complaint, P.W.8 registered the FIR/Ex.P5. But P.W.3 in his evidence states that after lodging the complaint P.W.1 informed about the incident on the next day. On receipt of the complaint, P.W.8 registered the FIR/Ex.P5. But P.W.3 in his evidence states that after lodging the complaint P.W.1 informed about the incident on the next day. P.W.4/brother of the victim confirms that he had not gone along with P.W.1 to the Police Station to lodge the complaint. The explanation seems to be that the said Lourdusamy was in Chennai and after receipt of the information, the said Lourdusamy had not come to the Village. But Lourdusamy, father of the victim neither enquired P.W.1 and P.W.2 about the incident nor visited the Police Station and lodged any complaint. The said Lourdusamy is not a witness in this case. Admittedly the only witness to the occurrence is P.W.2/victim and all other witnesses, namely, P.W.1/mother of the victim, P.W.3/Chairman of the Pastor Committee, P.W.4/brother of the victim and P.W.7/known person to P.W.1, all were informed about the incident by the victim. The victim on the day of occurrence went to the backyard to collect edible fruits along with Schoolmates Sowmiya and Jesiuva. Admittedly these two friends of the victim not examined as witnesses. Hence, the entire case rests on the evidence of P.W.2/victim. Before the Magistrate in Ex.P3/164 Statement, P.W.2 has stated as Thus, P.W.2’s consistent complaint against the appellant is that the appellant attempted to shut her mouth using a towel and attempted to embrace her, it was only an attempt and nothing more. 16.Admittedly, PW.2, the victim, is the sole witness to the occurrence. There is no reason for PW.2 to falsely implicate the appellant. She clearly state to her mother about the incident, which was later recorded as complaint [Ex.P1]. Thereafter, the victim gave a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., [Ex.P3] which confirmed the details mentioned in the complaint. 17.The trial Court, after considering all the facts and materials placed, found that there was no dispute regarding the victim girl [PW.2] going along with her friends to collect fruits. P.W.2 clearly stated that she was with two of her friends, one of whom was the appellant's brother's daughter. The victim girl was taken to an isolated place, where attempt was made to embrace her. This fact recorded in the complaint Ex.P1. Admittedly, there is a delay in lodging the complaint not all delays are fatal to the case. P.W.2 clearly stated that she was with two of her friends, one of whom was the appellant's brother's daughter. The victim girl was taken to an isolated place, where attempt was made to embrace her. This fact recorded in the complaint Ex.P1. Admittedly, there is a delay in lodging the complaint not all delays are fatal to the case. 18.The victim's evidence before the Trial Court is in conformity to the complaint [Ex.P1] and her earlier statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.[Ex.P.3]. Apart from raising a defence of dispute regarding electrical work and charges, the appellant unable to give any explanation. On the other hand, the evidence of the victim and other materials confirm the appellant's attempt of sexual assault. 19.Thus, the evidence of P.W.2 and her earlier statement considered. The other witnesses, namely, P.W.1/mother of the victim, P.W.3/Chairman of the Pastor Committee, P.W.4/brother of the victim and P.W.7/another villager all heard from P.W.2/victim. Thus, it is clear that an attempt was made by the appellant which has been warded off and the victim reported the same to her mother/P.W.1. In view of the above, this Court finds that the conviction imposed on th appellant under Section 10 of POCSO Act is not sustainable. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is modified and the appellant is convicted under Section 18 of POCSO Act and imposed an additional fine of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lakh only]. As regards the conviction imposed on the appellant for the offence under Section 506(i) IPC, the appellant had already undergone the sentence. 20.In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands partly allowed. 21.The appellant is directed to remit the fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 23.03.2025, which after remittance to be paid to the victim/P.W.2 as compensation. 22.Post the matter on 24.03.2025 under the caption ‘for reporting compliance’.