The conviction under IPC and POCSO was quashed due to insufficient evidence and contradictions in the victim's testimony, highlighting the need for corroboration in sexual assault cases.

JUDGMENT :

Since all these three appeals arising out of same P.S. case and common judgment, they are being disposed of with common judgment.

2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellants-convicts under Section-374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’) challenging the impugned judgment of conviction dated 15.07.2023 and order of sentence dated 18.07.2023 respectively passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge, POCSO Act-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Begusarai in POCSO Case No.96 of 2018 arising out of Matihani P.S. Case No.176 of 2018, whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted all above-named appellants/convicts under Sections 366-A, 354-B, 342 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short ‘POCSO Act’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 366-A read with 34 of the IPC, simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 342 read with 34 of the IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for four years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act. No separate sentence was passed under Section 354-B of the IPC in view of Section 42 of the POCSO Act. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case is based upon written information of the informant, namely, G.M./PW-3, submitted before the Officer Incharge of Matihani Police Station stating therein inter alia that his daughter ‘X’ aged about 10 years along with her friend ‘Y’ had gone to her Nanihal on 07.12.2018 at Rachiahi Kachahari Tol. She did not return back till late in the night then, he and other family members started searching for his daughter. On 08.12.2018, in the evening his daughter came and disclosed that on 07.12.2018 while she was returning from her Nanihal, at a lonely place at Lucho Chowk, the appellants-convicts namely Sumit Kumar, Vivek Kumar, Santosh Kumar and one another got her seated on motorcycle and took her at the house of Awadhesh Rai at Richiahi Purana Tol and kept her for the whole night and committed rape with her one after another. Awadhesh Rai and her wife threatened her. The informant further disclosed that the appellant Sumit Kumar dropped informant’s daughter at his village and fled away from there, who provided his daughter one mobile in which a SIM bearing no. 8969667468 was in use and a suit. On 09.12.2018, in the morning, a boy namely, Golu Kumar came at his house and asked to return said mobile and suit as same was demanded by the appellant namely, Sumit Kumar. At that time, Golu Kumar was apprehended and handed over to the police.

4. On the basis of aforesaid written report, Matihani police drew up a formal FIR and registered a case being Matihani P.S. Case No.176 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 376-A/34, 120-B, 366-A of the IPC and Sections 4/8 of the POCSO Act.

5. After completion of investigation, the investigating officer has submitted charge-sheet vide charge-sheet No. 24 of 2019 dated 06.03.2019 under Sections 366-A, 354-B, 342 read with 34 of the IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act against appellant, Sumit Kumar, co-accused Bibha Devi, appellant Vivek Kumar and co-accused Golu Kumar and investigation against other accused persons remained in progress and on completion thereof, the Investigating Officer submitted supplementary charge-sheet No.186 of 2019 on 31.12.2019 under Section 366-A, 376-DA, 342 read with 34 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act against the appellant Santosh Kumar and another accused namely, Awdhesh Rai. As the trial of the accused Golu Kumar was separated because he was ju