Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
(In Criminal Appeal (DB) No.696 of 2021)
For the Appellants:Mr. Shashank Chandra, Advocate, Ms. Kumari Shubham, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP
(In Criminal Appeal (DB) No.763 of 2021)
For the Appellant:Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The prosecution bears the burden of establishing beyond all reasonable doubts that the victim was under 18 years of age at the time of the occurrence to invoke the provisions of the POCSO Act. The age determination based solely on radiological examination and medical reports, which estimate the victim's age to be between 15-16 years, cannot be considered entirely accurate. The prosecution failed to follow the prescribed procedure under Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, which mandates establishing the age through official documents such as school records or birth certificates, before relying on medical evidence (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

2. The evidence regarding the victim’s age, primarily based on medical examination, is insufficient to conclusively prove that she was a child under 18 years at the time of the incident. The lack of proper age verification procedures undermines the conviction under the relevant sections of the POCSO Act and IPC (!) (!) (!) .

3. The prosecution's case of kidnapping and gang rape is not conclusively proved. Witness testimonies, including those of the victim and her family members, are inconsistent and unreliable. The victim herself contradicted certain aspects of the prosecution's narrative, such as the timing and circumstances of the kidnapping and the disclosure of rape, which casts doubt on the credibility of the case (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

4. The medical evidence does not support the occurrence of gang rape. The delay in FIR registration and discrepancies in the victim’s disclosures further weaken the prosecution's case. The evidence does not establish beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused committed the alleged offenses (!) (!) (!) (!) .

5. As the fundamental requirement of establishing the victim’s age was not adequately met, and the evidence regarding the alleged kidnapping and sexual assault is not sufficiently credible, the conviction of the appellants under the relevant sections of the IPC and POCSO Act cannot be sustained. The appellate court set aside the conviction and ordered the release of the accused persons forthwith (!) (!) .

6. The appeals are allowed, and the appellants are acquitted of all charges. They are to be released from custody if not required in any other matter (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you require further analysis or assistance.