The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; mere allegations without corroborative evidence are insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Kumar, J.

1. All the three appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. We have heard Ms Vaishnavi Singh, the learned Advocate for the appellants/Modassir Khan @ Md. Modassir Khan in Cr. Appeal (DB) No .1018 of 2023 and Aftab Khan @ Kaku Khan in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1085/2023 and Mr. Manish Kumar No. II for Zaidi Khan in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1141/2023. The State in all the three appeals has been represented by Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, the learned APP.

3. The appellants have been convicted for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 376(DA) and 506 of the IPC and Sections 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 by judgment dated 24.08.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Court -cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge -VI, Gaya in POCSO Case No. 34/2023 arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 113 of 2022. By order dated 04.09.2023, they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under Sections 323 IPC; S.I. for one months for the offence under Section 341 IPC; R.I. for five years for the offence under Section 506 IPC and R.I. for remainder of their lives along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further suffer S.I. for three months for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. No separate sentenced was ordered for the offence under Section 376 (DA) of the IPC.

4. The three appellants are alleged to have gang-raped the victim (PW2).

5. The victim had herself lodged the written report after six days of the occurrence on 06.12.2022 alleging that on 30.11.2022, while she was going to the house of one Waris Khan for bringing milk, the appellants took her on a motorcycle to a Mausoleum. In a container parked there, she was subjected to rape by all the three appellants. She was also threatened that if she spoke about the occurrence to anyone, the consequence would follow.

6. Based on the aforenoted written report lodged by the victim (PW2), a case vide Gaya Mahila P.S. Case No. 113 of 2022 dated 06.12.2022 was registered for investigation against the appellants under Sections 341, 376(D), 376(DA) and 506 of the IPC and Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

7. The police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the appellants whereupon they were tried.

8. The learned Trial Court after having examined seven witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and none on behalf of the defense, convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid.

9. The learned Advocates for the appellants have contended that neither the prosecutrix nor anyone of the witnesses including her father, brother and sister have supported the prosecution case. All of them have spoken about rape having been committed on the victim but the appellants were not to be blamed. Some of them have been declared hostile.

10. The other argument raised on behalf of the appellants is that their names have been introduced in the case by the Investigator. The reason for this assumption is that the Investigator had made a requisition before the Court for getting a Test Identification Parade held. The appellants are the local persons and if the victim had named them, there was no necessity for any Test Identification Parade.

11. Lastly, it has been urged that the victim was immediately put to medical examination but the Doctor though found her to be 14 to 15 years of age, did not discover any sign of recent sexual intercourse or any injury on her private parts.

12. Additionally, it was also submitted that the age of the victim was not assessed in the manner in which it should have been by the Trial Court and that the appellants, after their arrest, were not subjected to any medical examination in accordance with Section 53(A) of the Cr.P.C.

13. The learned Advocates have further argued that two articles viz., a towel and a piece of cloth with stains were sent for forensic examination but no report was forthcoming and the Trial Court did not even look for such report. This even renders t