The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of corroborating the victim's testimony, conducting thorough investigations, and following proper procedures in filing charges.

JUDGMENT :

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose the above three appeals preferred by the respective appellants against the common judgment of conviction dated 09.11.2017 and order on sentence dated 13.11.2017 in Sessions Trial (POCSO) Case No. 02 of 2017 (State of Sikkim vs. Chandra Bahadur Rai, Tshering Thendup Bhutia and Arun Rai) passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), West Sikkim at Gyalshing. At the outset, we notice that Arun Rai had, besides filing a separate appeal, i.e., Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2018, also jointly filed Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2018 along with Chandra Bahadur Rai, both of which have been admitted for hearing. In view of the same, we deem it appropriate to consider Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2018 for Chandra Bahadur Rai and Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2018 for Arun Rai.

2. A brief narration of facts common to the three appeals would be imperative at this stage. On 23.01.2017, a written complaint (Exhibit-3) was filed by the victim’s father (PW-2) alleging that his daughter, the victim (PW-1), aged about 13 years was being raped by Chandra Bahadur Rai and Tshering Thendup Bhutia, appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2018 and Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2018, respectively. The first information report (FIR) (Exhibit-4) was lodged on the same date against the said two appellants and investigation taken up by Sub Inspector Naresh Chettri (PW-13). During the investigation, it is submitted, the statement (Exhibit-1) of the victim (PW-1) was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 10.02.2017 under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), in which the victim (PW-1) alleged that Arun Rai, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2018, had also tried committing sexual abuse on her several times. The Investigating Officer (IO) filed the charge-sheet dated 17.04.2017 against all the three appellants. The learned Special Judge framed charges against the appellants on 09.05.2017. Chandra Bahadur Rai was charged for commission of offences under section 5(l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), section 383 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), section 307 IPC and section 506 IPC. Tshering Thendup Bhutia was charged for commission of offence under section 4 of the POCSO Act. Arun Rai was charged for commission of offences under section 7 of the POCSO Act and under section 506 IPC. During the trial, 13 witnesses were examined by the prosecution including the IO. The appellants were, thereafter, examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. on 21.09.2017. The appellants did not desire to produce any witnesses for their defence. The learned Special Judge convicted Chandra Bahadur Rai for commission of offence under section 5(l) of the POCSO Act and under section 506 IPC. He was acquitted of the charges under sections 383 and 307 IPC. Tshering Thendup Bhutia was convicted under section 18 of the POCSO Act for attempting to commit the offence of penetrative sexual assault. Arun Rai was convicted under section 7 of the POCSO Act and under section 506 IPC. By the order on sentence dated 13.11.2017, the learned Special Judge sentenced Chandra Bahadur Rai to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of twenty-five years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand). In default thereof, he was to undergo further imprisonment for a term of five years. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years for the offence under section 506 IPC. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently. Tshering Thendup Bhutia was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand). In default thereof, he was sentenced to undergo further imprisonment for a term of three years. Arun Rai was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years and six months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). In default thereof, he was to undergo