The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conclusive evidence to establish criminal charges, and the importance of supporting evidence in criminal trials.

JUDGMENT :

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.

Since all these three appeals arise of the same judgment and order of learned trial court, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by the present common judgment and order.

2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellants assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 16.08.2019 and order sentence dated 21.08.2019, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-1st-cum-Special Judge POCSO, Lakhisarai in POCSO No. 41 of 2016 arising out of Medni Chowki P.S. Case No. 41 of 2016, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:

3. Heard Mr. Binay Kumar with Mr. Sumit Shekhar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1119 of 2019 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 473 of 2021; Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Ram Chandra Sahni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1089 of 2019 and Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in all the appeals.

4. The victim’s name is being concealed in the present judgment and order and she is being referred to as the victim or P.W.-3. The mother of P.W-3 is the informant of the case on whose written report dated 22.08.2016, the concerned Medni Chowki P.S. Case No. 41 of 2016 came to be registered leveling offences punishable under Sections 376, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from of Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), who has been examined as PW-2 at the trial.

5. According to the prosecution’s case as disclosed in the First Information Report (F.I.R. for brevity), at about 11:00-12:00 pm on 19.08.2016, when the informant’s daughter (the victim) was sleeping in her house, Bhukhan Mahto (appellant of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1119 of 2019), Karelal Mahto (appellant of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 473 of 2021) and Ajit Mahto along with one unknown entered into the house. Ajit Mahto is said to have disclosed to victim that he was the father-in-law of the maternal uncle of the victim (P.W.-3). They thereafter started molesting the victim. It was further alleged that the said three persons named in the F.I.R forcibly took P.W-3 (the victim) to a nearby field where they raped her. The accused persons were armed with firearms and after having sexually assaulted her, they brought the victim back to her house in unconscious condition. For the occurrence said to have taken place on 19.08.2016, the F.I.R came to be registered on 22.08.2016 with an explanation that out of the fear of the accused persons and likely social humiliation, there was delay of two days in lodging the F.I.R..

6. It transp