IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the age of the prosecutrix and the reliability of her testimony beyond reasonable doubt, along with the need for corroboration of the prosecutrix's statement and the importance of medical evidence in cases of rape.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.

1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.08.2017 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO (F.T.C.), Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh in Special Sessions Trial No.136 of 2016, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under :-

2. The fact of the case is that on 25.11.2016, in between 1:15 PM to 5:30 PM, appellants forcibly took the prosecutrix (PW-1), who was below 18 years of age, to Muktidham waiting room at village Kareli Badi on a motorcycle without her consent and committed gang rape one after the other.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 25.11.2016, at about 2:00 PM, the prosecutrix (PW-1), who was below 16 years of age, was going to Baheredi Khar on a bicycle to the field where her mother was working, on the way, the appellants stopped her. Accused Gitu Sahu @ Jeetu forcibly took the prosecutrix on a motorcycle, which was being driven by accused Arwind Pal. She was taken to Muktidham waiting room situated near nursery on the banks of Nava Talab and forcibly she was raped first by Arwind Pal, then by Gitu Sahu @ Jeetu, Hirendra Sahu and Rajendra Kumar Sahu. While searching, prosecutrix’s brother and brother's friend reached to Muktidham and upon seeing them, appellants ran away from the spot, then, her brother and brother's friend caught Hirendra Sahu and Arwind Pal. Subsequently, on the same day, a written report was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW-1) vide Ex.P/1 at Police Chowki Kareli Badi, Police Station Magarload, District Dhamtari (C.G.), on the basis of which, First Information Report was registered vide Ex.P/2. After consent, medical examination of prosecutrix (PW-1) was conducted by Dr. Pushpa Janbandhu (PW-17) on 26.11.2016 at about 1:00 PM. She opined that it was not possible to give opinion regarding immediate sexual intercourse and advised to do X-ray to check age of prosecutrix, but ossification test was not conducted. The prepared slides and seized clothes were sent for its chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory and as per FSL report (Ex.P/41), semen stains and human sperm were found on the vaginal slides of prosecutrix as well as on the underwears of appellants Rajendra Kumar Sahu and Gitu Sahu @ Jeetu.

4. After the completion of investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 341/34, 363/34 and 376(D) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) as well as Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “POCSO Act”) before the concerned jurisdictional Criminal Court and thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Special Sessions Judge under POCSO (F.T.C.), Dhamtari (C.G.) for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which the appellants abjured their guilt, took the plea of false implication and entered into trial.

5. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 18 witne