Arrested at the hearing on September 27, 2012, in accordance with article 384 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the case was successively postponed until the hearing of November 15, 2012, where it was usefully held; At the appeal of the case, the Prosecutor of the Republic explained that by the aforementioned report, he had made the accused appear before the Tribunal at the hearing of that day to defend himself because of the above offence; The Registrar then read the documents in the file. Then the defendant was heard, the Registrar took note of the witness's statements and the defendant's answers; The civil party xxx, through her tutor, declared that she was a civil party, requested an act from the Court which it granted her and stated not to claim damages; The public prosecutor summed up the case and demanded against the defendant the application of the law. The defendant presented his defense, The Tribunal then reserved the case for judgment to be delivered at the hearing on November 22, 2012. On that date, the Court, after having deliberated in accordance with the law, ruled as follows: THE TRIBUNAL Having regard to the documents in the file; Having heard the accused during his interrogation; Hearing the submissions of the civil party, the requests of the Public Prosecutor, the defense of accused; Whereas by report of interrogation of flagrante delicto dated September 25, 2012 Mr. the public prosecutor charged xxx before this correctional court of having in Touba, September 23, 2012, in any case before prescription of public action, committed an indecent assault without violence on the person of xxx under 13 years old; To have in the same circumstances of time and place, committed gestures, touching or fondling for sexual purposes on the latter; Facts provided for and punished by articles 319 and 320 of the Penal Code; On public action: Whereas it results from the procès-verbal n ° 669 dated September 15, 2012 from the special police station of Touba that the named xxx and her husband xxx filed a complaint against the named xxx for acts of pedophilia; xxx declared having caught xxx caressing the private parts of her daughter xxx; As for xxx, he agreed with his wife before indicating that the respondent first tried to deny the facts before admitting them and proposing him an amicable settlement to cover up the case that risks to damage the reputation of the family. He also stated that he noticed that xxx used to isolate himself with her daughter when he came home and sometimes gave her small gifts; During her hearing by the investigators, xxx explained that xxx had lifted her loincloth and put his hand on her sex; She indicated that this was the second time that xxx engaged in this kind of act with her, but she never denounced it; xxx for his part disputed the charges against him while claiming that he was playing with xxx as his mother entered the veranda. He clarified that xxx accused him because she was terrorized by her mother; Whereas at the bar, the parties reiterated their statements made at the preliminary inquiry; Whereas the public prosecutor, after a brief reminder of the facts, submitted that the defendant went to the home of xxx where he caressed the private parts of xxx; He therefore demanded that the accused be declared guilty of the offenses of pedophilia and indecent assault and sentenced to one (01) and two (02) years of imprisonment respectively; Whereas the defendant's counsel submitted that the facts are not real, it is simply an invention of the mind because there were suspicions that weighed on xxx due to the uncomfortable position in which he was;