The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for corroborative evidence in cases of sexual offences, the admissibility of victim's statements recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the significance of forensic reports in establishing guilt.

JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Three appeals have been heard analogously as they emanate from the same impugned judgement of conviction and the order of sentence.

2. By the impugned judgement of conviction dated September 18, 2014 the learned Trial Judge had found the appellants guilty under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3. By the impugned order of sentence, the learned Trial Judge had sentenced the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of twenty years for the offence punishable under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000 each and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

4. At the hearing of the three appeals, some of the appellants were unrepresented and consequently, we had appointed an amicus curiae.

5. Since the police case involved provisions of Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, we would be referring to the appellants in abbreviation, in this judgement. Appellant No. 1 of CRA 711 of 2014 is referred to as SD, Appellant No. 2 and Appellant No. 3 therein as RM and RB respectively. Appellant in CRA 766 of 2014 is referred to as PB and appellant in CRA 767 of 2014 is referred to as PR.

6. Police had received a written complaint from the father of the victim on October 26, 2013 with regard to kidnapping, gang rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor. Police had registered a formal First Information Report on October 26, 2013 under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. On the conclusion of the investigation, police had submitted charge sheet against the appellants.

7. Police had identified six persons as being involved in the crime. One of the persons being PW 23 had submitted a petition on January 30, 2014 before the jurisdictional Court praying for pardon expressing his willingness to be approver of the case. In view of such prayer, jurisdictional Court had sent him to segregation and thereafter examined him in Court on the point of becoming an approver.

8. By an order dated January 21, 2014, the jurisdictional Court had allowed prayer for pardon after such prayer was supported by the prosecution. Consequently, PW 23 had been deleted from the column of the name of accused person and was put into the category of witnesses.

9. Charges under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 had been framed against the five appellants herein on February 3, 2014. An additional charge under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was framed as against ST.

10. At the trial, the case of the prosecution was that, ST on October 25, 2013 had kidnapped the victim, a minor from the lawful guardianship of her parents. The appellants had committed gang rape on the victim and acted in furtherance of such common intention, on October 25, 2013 at a field in a specified area, which given the subject matter of the case, is not stated in details herein, at about 10.30 PM onwards. The appellants had also committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim in furtherance of their common intention and therefore, committed an offence punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

11. In order to prove the charges as against the appellant, prosecution had examined 35 witnesses and relied upon various documentary and material evidence at the trial. On conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, each of the appellants had been examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code where they claimed to be innocent and falsely implicated. They had declined to adduce any evidence.

12. Learned advocate appearing for the PD, ST, RB has submitted that, there was a disconnect between the contents of the written complaint and the case sought to be mad