Conviction on circumstantial evidence is valid if the chain of events is complete and excludes innocence. Where incriminating facts remain within an individual's exclusive knowledge, their failure to provide a plausible explanation creates an admissible link, confirming guilt when supported by medical and consistent testimonial evidence.

The aforesaid appeals preferred under Section 374 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”) arise out of the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.1.2017 and 17.1.2017 respectively, hence the aforesaid appeals have been heard together and are being disposed off by the present common judgment. By the said judgment dated 10.1.2017, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Khagaria (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. Trial Judge”) in Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act Case No. 3 of 2016 (arising out of Morkahi P. S. Case No. 6 of 2016), the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34 , 376(A) and 376(D)/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereafter referred to as “the I.P.C.”) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “POCSO Act, 2012”). By the aforesaid order of sentence dt. 17.01.2017, the appellants have been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 376 (A) of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 376 (D) of the IPC with fine of Rs. 25,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they have been further directed to undergo one-year rigorous imprisonment each. The learned Trial Judge has further clarified that the sentence of imprisonment for life shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of the appellants’ natural life. No separate sentence has been awarded under Section 302, considering the fact that Section 376(A) of the I.P.C. is a joint form of Section 302 and 376 I.P.C. The appellants have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 with fine of Rs. 25,000/- each & in default of payment of the fine, they have been further directed to undergo one-year rigorous imprisonment each.

2. The short facts of the case are that a written report was submitted by the informant, namely Ganeshi Sada (P.W.-5) on 17.01.2016 before the Officer-in-Charge, Morkahi Police Station (Khagaria), wherein he has stated that on 16.01.2016 at about 6:00 pm in the evening while he was feeding his cattle at the basa (cattle house) along with his daughter (hereinafter referred to as “the victim girl”), aged about 10 years, his co-villagers, namely Bhushan Sada, Gholat Sada and Anjesh Sada had arrived there, whereafter they had forcibly held the hand of her daughter and dragged her away, whereupon the informant had objected to the same leading to the said accused persons having shown country made pistol and after threatening him they had forcibly taken away the daughter of the informant and upon hearing hulla (alarm), the co-villagers had assembled there. The informant with the aid of the villagers had engaged in search and during the course of search, they found the dead body of the victim girl in the corn field of Dhaneshwar Singh in a semi-nude condition with blood oozing out of her private parts. The informant has further stated that he has reasons to believe that his daughter (victim girl) was forcibly taken away by the aforesaid three accused persons, who h