JUDGEMENT : Suman Shyam, J. Heard Dr. B.N. Gogoi, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 79/2020 and Mr. Mrinmoy Dutta, learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant in Crl. Appeal (J) No. 02/2021. We have also heard Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing on behalf of the State in both these appeals. Mr. A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the informant/ respondent No. 2 is also present. 2. Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 21-12-2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, Sivasagar in Special (P) Case No. 46/2017. By the impugned judgment, the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 79/2020, viz.Kumud Chandra Borgohain (A-1) has been convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act read with Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-with default stipulation. By the impugned judgment, the appellant in Crl. Appeal (J) No. 02/2021 was also convicted under Section 17 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and under Section 109 read with Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-with default stipulation. 3. At the outset it deserves to be mentioned herein that the two victim girls who have brought the allegation against the appellants are the daughters of one of the appellants Smti. Biju Saikia (A-2). On 30-09-2017 one of the twin daughters of the appellant A-2 who is referred to as ‘D’, in this case had lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge, Namti Police Station alleging that the A-1, a resident of Namti Chariali, Gohain Gaon had been visiting their house for almost 10/12 years and during that time, he had been indulging in illicit relationship with her mother (A-2). Afterwards the accused A-1 on the pretext of taking her to the hospital, took her to a hotel at Jorhat and sexually assaulted her. That apart, he also took her to Dibrugarh and sexually assaulted her and also tried to assault her at home. In addition to that, by luring her sister ‘J’ saying that he would take her to Guwahati for outing, on two occasions, he had sexually assaulted her also at night. Her mother A-2 has full cooperation in the matter. That apart, he also took her to Dibrugarh and sexually assaulted her and also tried to assault her at home. In addition to that, by luring her sister ‘J’ saying that he would take her to Guwahati for outing, on two occasions, he had sexually assaulted her also at night. Her mother A-2 has full cooperation in the matter. Therefore, request had been made before the Investigating Officer (I/O) to take necessary action in the matter. 4. Based on the ejahar dated 30-09-2017, Namti P.S. Case No. 21/2017 was registered under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and the matter was taken up for investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, the I/O had submitted charge sheet against both the accused persons. Based on the charge sheet submitted by the I/O the learned Special Judge had framed charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act read with Section 376(2)(f)(n) of the IPC against A-1. Charge against A-2 was also framed under the aforesaid sections as well as Section 109 IPC for abatement of the main offence. Since the accused persons had denied the charge and claimed innocence, they were subjected to trial. 5. During the course of trial, the victims, viz. ‘D’ and ‘J’ were examined by the prosecution as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively. The prosecution side has also examined eight other witnesses including the father (PW-4) and the brother (PW-3) of the victim girls, the Doctor, who had conducted medical examination of the victims (PW-8) and the I/Os who had conducted the investigation and submitted report as PWs-9 and 10 respectively. Two witnesses, viz.Smti. Queen Dutta and Mr. Farid Islam Hazarika were examined as Court Witness Nos. 1 and 2. After recording the evidence adduced by the prosecution side the statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The case of the defense was one of total denial. The accused (A-1) has also stated that when the demand for money amounting to Rs. 7,00,000/-made by the brother of the victim was turned down, a false case was instituted against him. Based on the evidence available on record, the learned Special Judge, Sivasagar had held that the charges brought against both the accused persons had been established beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted the accused persons and sentenced them in the manner indicated hereinabove. 6. Assailing the impugned judgment dated 21-12-2019, Dr. Based on the evidence available on record, the learned Special Judge, Sivasagar had held that the charges brought against both the accused persons had been established beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted the accused persons and sentenced them in the manner indicated hereinabove. 6. Assailing the impugned judgment dated 21-12-2019, Dr. Gogoi, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl. A. No. 79/2020 has argued that save and except the testimony of the two victim girls there is not even an iota of evidence to establish the charge brought against the accused persons. He submits that there are material contradiction in the testimony of PWs-1 and 2 and even the family members of the victims have not supported the prosecution story. That apart, there is no explanation for the delay in lodging the ejahar. Under the circumstances, submits Dr. Gogoi, the learned trial court has committed manifest illegality in convicting the appellant including the mother of the victims for committing offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Dr. Gogoi has further argued that the ejahar lodged by the father of the victims on 29-09-2019 making allegations against the accused A-1 based on which Namti P.S. Case No. 20/2017 was registered under Section 366 IPC has ended in final report and the version narrated in the said ejahar is wholly inconsistent with the prosecution story. According to Dr. Gogoi, not to speak of sufficient evidence to prove the charge, the prosecution has even failed to establish that the victims were aged below 18 years on the alleged date of occurrence. In such view of the matter, learned counsel has prayed for setting aside the conviction of A-1 and for acquitting him. 7. Supporting the contention advanced by Dr. Gogoi, Mr. Mrinmoy Dutta, learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant (A-2) in Crl. Appeal (J) No. 02/2021 has argued that the version emerging from the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 is not believable due to inherent contradiction in their statements and there are material improvement in the version of prosecution witnesses. Contending that the medical evidence as well as testimony of CWs-1 and 2 did not support the prosecution case, Mr. Dutta has argued that the evidence of PW-3, i.e. the brother of the victims also contradicts the testimony of the prosecutrix and thereby conclusively demolishes the prosecution case. Contending that the medical evidence as well as testimony of CWs-1 and 2 did not support the prosecution case, Mr. Dutta has argued that the evidence of PW-3, i.e. the brother of the victims also contradicts the testimony of the prosecutrix and thereby conclusively demolishes the prosecution case. The learned amicus curiae, therefore, submits that present is a fit case where the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and the appellant be acquitted. 8. Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the respondent State, on the other hand, has argued that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the victim girls were aged below 18 years on the date of occurrence and from their testimony, it has clearly emerged that both the appellants were not only having illicit relationship behind the back of the husband of A-2 but the complicity of the mother in permitting her daughters to be sexually assaulted by accused A-1 has also been established. Under the circumstances, submits Mr. Das, there is no justifiable ground for this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment. The learned Addl. P.P. has, however, submitted in his usual fairness that both the alleged occurrence had apparently taken place about a year before the ejahar was lodged and there is no proper explanation for the delay in lodging the ejahar. 9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the materials available on record. On a careful scrutiny of the record, we find that the prosecution story is almost entirely based on the testimony of two victim girls who were examined as PWs-1 and 2. 10. In her testimony PW-1, i.e. ‘D’ has deposed that A-2 is her mother and A-1 was known to her. A-1 used to frequently visit their shop. Presently, her age was 18 years and she was a student of Class-X at Namti Girls School. Her date of birth was 17-06-1999. In the year 2016, the accused A-1 used to visit their residence and he became like a family member. In the year 2016, A-1 had offered to take her to Dibrugarh for her skin problem and medical check-up which she had declined. However, her mother (A-2) had forcibly sent her to Dibrugarh with A-1. The accused took her to one hotel at Dibrugarh and committed rape on her inside the hotel room. In the year 2016, A-1 had offered to take her to Dibrugarh for her skin problem and medical check-up which she had declined. However, her mother (A-2) had forcibly sent her to Dibrugarh with A-1. The accused took her to one hotel at Dibrugarh and committed rape on her inside the hotel room. The accused did not take her to hospital for medical treatment. They stayed in the hotel for one night. The accused had introduced her as his daughter in the hotel by changing her surname. From Dibrugarh, the A-1 brought her back to her residence. She did not inform the matter to her mother as her mother did not listen to them and remained under the influence of A-1. After about a year A-1 took her to Jorhat for medical consultation for her skin problem and after consultation with the Doctor, he took her to a hotel at Jorhat and kept her in the said hotel for a night. Her mother had called A-1 and he informed her that he will spend the night in the house of a known person. By keeping her in the hotel at Jorhat, the accused (A-1) had committed rape on her at night. PW-1 has further stated that the accused took her to Jorhat thrice and committed rape on her on all the three occasions. Out of these three occasions, she was taken for medical check-up on two occasions and once for visit. On all the three occasions she went alone with the accused A-1 being forced by her mother, in spite of her reluctance. This witness has further deposed that the A-1 used to come to their residence in the absence of her father and used to sleep with A-2. In the absence of her father, her mother (A-2) used to call the A-1 and he used to spend nights in their house. When the A-1 came to their house, he used to touch her body and also took her sister ‘J’ to Guwahati and committed misdeed. ‘J’ went to Guwahati once with her mother and once alone. PW-1 has further stated that she had reported the matter to her aunt Mira Devi Saikia. Just before the filing of the case, during the night hours, when A-1 came to their house, herself and ‘J’ did not treat him well, as a result of which, A-2 had rebuked them. PW-1 has further stated that she had reported the matter to her aunt Mira Devi Saikia. Just before the filing of the case, during the night hours, when A-1 came to their house, herself and ‘J’ did not treat him well, as a result of which, A-2 had rebuked them. On that, her elder brother Bibhuti Saikia asked them about the reason for doing so and then they narrated the incident of rape and misbehavior committed by A-1 on them. Having come to know about the same, her brother had scolded A-1, but her mother (A-2) had protected him and even asked her to beg apology, which she refused. On hearing the hue and cry in their house, the neighbouring people had gathered. Her brother had also slapped the accused A-1. Then her mother (A-2) had sent A-1 out of the house through the back side of the house. On the same night, they went to Namti Police Station and lodged FIR. PW-2 has confirmed that Exhibit-1 is the FIR and Exhibit-1(i) was her signature. She has also deposed that the police had interrogated her and took her as well as victim ‘J’ to the hospital. Her statement was also recorded before the Magistrate and Exhibit-2 is the said statement. During her cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that her birth was in their residence. Namti Public Health Centre was near their house but she could not say if the said hospital issued birth certificate. Exhibit-4 Birth Certificate was issued by the Geleki Unit of Registrar of Birth and Death. This witness has denied the suggestion that her age was higher than what had been claimed and that she had failed once in Class-VIII and on several occasions, in the school. She has also admitted that no document showing her skin ailments in the year 2016 had been submitted nor had she disclosed the name of the Doctor who had examined her at Guwahati. 11. She has also admitted that no document showing her skin ailments in the year 2016 had been submitted nor had she disclosed the name of the Doctor who had examined her at Guwahati. 11. During her cross-examination, PW-1 had denied the suggestion that she had not stated before the I/O that “my mother has forcible sent me with the accused Kumud Chandra Gogoi to Dibrugarh; that in the hotel accused Kumud introduced me as his daughter by changing my title; that I did not inform the matter to my mother as she did not listen to us and remain influenced from Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain; that from Jorhat when my mother called Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain, he informed my mother that he will stay at residence of his known person; that accused took me to Jorhat trice and committed rape on all the three occasions; that out of this, twice I was taken for medical check up and once for visit; that in absence of my father my mother used to call Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain and he used to stay at our home for night; that while he come to our residence, Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain used touch my body; that accused took my sister Jimpy to Guwahati twice and also committed misdeeds with him and once Jimpy went to Guwahati with my mother and once alone; that we have reported the matter to our aunt Mira Devi Saikia, that just before filing of the case, at night hours, when Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain came to our house and I and Jimpy did not responded well to treat him, he rebuked us, that on this my elder brother Bibhuti Saikia asked about the reason and we narrated the incidents of misbehaves and rape on us by Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain, that on knowing this my brother scolded Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain but my mother protected the accused Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain; that even our mother asked us to beg apology but we refused; that on hearing hue and cry at our house, neighbouring peoples gathered at our house; that my brother also slapped the accused Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain and on this my mother sent back the accused from back side of the house.” PW-1 has also denied the suggestion that A-1 never took her to any hotel or kept her there and never committed any rape on her. PW-1 has further denied that she has deposed falsely on being tutored by others and that she has falsely implicated her mother since she might reveal the truth. 12. PW-2 ‘J’ is the twin sister of the PW-1 and is the other victim in this case. In her deposition before the court, PW-2 has stated in similar lines by saying that the accused A2 is her mother and A-1 is known to her. A-1 used to frequently visit their shop and residence. Presently, her age was 18 years and she was studying in Class- X at Namti Girls School. Her date of birth was 17-06-1999. Since 2006, the A-1 used to visit their residence while he was an electrical contractor and became like a family member. The A-1 also used to visit the shop opened by her mother (A-2). A-1 had helped her mother financially in maintaining the shop and the family. In the absence of her father, her mother used to call the A-1 to their residence, who used to come and stay with her mother. While he stayed in their residence over the past 6/7 years, the A-2 used to ask the A-1 to sleep with them. She along with her sister ‘D’ used to sleep with the A-1. While sleeping with A-1, he used to commit rape on her and ‘D’. Though she had informed the matter to her mother she disbelieved them and remained silent. In the year 2016, during the summer vacations, the A-1 took her to Guwahati for a visit and kept her in a rented house for two nights. The A-1 had committed rape on her twice during the stay at Guwahati. PW-2 has further stated that A-1 used to bring drinks and fruits and used to force her to consume drinks. After that, the A-1 tried to take her out side but she used to boldly refuse. A-1 also took her sister ‘D’ to Jorhat and Dibrugarh for medical consultation for her skin problem. ‘D’ had reported to her that the A-1 had committed rape on her at Dibrugarh and Jorhat. She also informed the matter to her best friend Queen Dutta (CW1). A-1 committed rape on ‘D’ on several occasions. The witness has stated that she has informed the matter to the Secretary of the NGO Mr. Farid Islam Hazarika (CW-2). ‘D’ had reported to her that the A-1 had committed rape on her at Dibrugarh and Jorhat. She also informed the matter to her best friend Queen Dutta (CW1). A-1 committed rape on ‘D’ on several occasions. The witness has stated that she has informed the matter to the Secretary of the NGO Mr. Farid Islam Hazarika (CW-2). Just before filing the case, a feast was organized in their residence due to home coming of her uncle. After the dinner, when A-1 came to their house and she and ‘D’ did not respond well to him, at that time, A-1 had rebuked them. At that stage, her elder brother Bibhuti Saikia (PW-3) had asked her about the reason and they narrated the incident of rape and misbehavour committed on them by the A-1. Having come to know about the same, her brother had scolded the A-1 but her mother (A-2) had protected the accused from public outrage. On hearing the hue and cry coming from their house neighbouring people had gathered but her mother had sent the accused from the back side of the house. On the same night, they went to Namti Police Station and lodged ejahar. Police took her and ‘D’ to the hospital. She also recorded her statement before the Magistrate. During her cross-examination, this witness has stated the she did not know if the Geleki Unit of Registrar of Birth & Death had issued her the birth certificate Exhibit-5, but has denied that Exhibit-5 is a document procured by her father so as to show that her age was less than the her actual age. This witness has further stated that she has failed once in Class-IX and appeared in Class-X examination from Srimanta Sankardev High School at Meteka. This witness has further stated that she has failed once in Class-IX and appeared in Class-X examination from Srimanta Sankardev High School at Meteka. On being confronted by the defense side, PW-2 has denied the suggestion that she had not stated before the police that “Accused Kumud also used to visit the shop opened my mother and came in touch; that in absence of my father, my mother used to call Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain to our residence and stay with mother; that while he used to stay in our residence, since last 6-7 years my mother asked Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain to sleep with us; while sleeping with us Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain used to commit rape on me and Dimpy; though I informed the matter to my mother, she disbelieves us and remained mum; at Guwahati, accused also used to bring drink and with fruits forced us to consume drink; that after this accused tried to take me again outside but I boldly refused; that accused took my sister Dimpy to Jorhat and Dibrugarh for medical consultation for her skin problem, that Dimpy reported to me that accused Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain has committed rape on her at Dibrugarh and Jorhat; that she also told the matter to her best friend Queen Dutta; that accused Kumud Chandra Borgohain committed rape on Dimpy on several occasions; that I have also informed the matter to NGO secretary Farid Islam Hazarika; that just before filing of the case, a feast was organized at our residence on coming of uncles, that after the dinner, when Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain came to our house and I and Dimpy did not responded well to treat him and on this Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain rebuked us; that on this my elder brother Bibhuti Saikia asked about the reason and we narrated that incidents of misbehaves and rape on us by Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain; that on knowing this my brother scolded Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain but my mother protected the accused Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain from public outrage; that on hearing hue and cry at our house, neighbouring peoples gathered at our house and on this my mother sent back the accused from back side of the house.” This witness has also denied the suggestion that accused A-1 never took her to Guwahati nor did he ever commit rape on her. She had also denied of having falsely deposed before the Court on being tutored by others. 13. PW-3, Sri Bibhuti Saikia is the elder brother of the two victim girls. He has stated in his deposition that the A-2 is his mother and A-1 is known to him who used to frequently visit their shop. Victim ‘D’ and ‘J’ are his younger sisters. They are twins, presently their age was about 16 years and both of them were studying in Class-X at the Namti Girls School. Since about past 10 years A-1 has been visiting their residence and has become like a family member. Whenever he came home, he used to take lunch or dinner. On 30-09-2017, when their family members and uncles joined in a get together and after the guests had left the house, A-1 came to their house and asked for a glass of water from his sister ‘J’. At that time, he was taking his meal. His sister ‘J’ had replied that by giving water to the A-1 they were maintaining a snake by giving milk. He then asked his sister ‘J’ as to why she had uttered these words but ‘J’ did not give any direct reply. On being asked ‘D’ narrated to him in details about the incident. His sister ‘D’ had told him that the A-1, by taking both of them to various places, had attempted to commit rape on them. ‘D’ also told him that the A-1 took them to Jorhat, Dibrugarh and Guwahati. Having come to know about the same, he had an altercation with A-1. On hearing the hue and cry neighbouring people had gathered in her house. Seeing the villagers coming to their house A-1 fled from their house by leaving behind his scooty. His mother also made an attempt to set the shop on fire by pouring kerosene but she failed. On the same night, they went to Namti P.S. and his sister lodged an ejahar. Police came to their house and interrogated him. 14. During cross-examination, PW-3 has stated that he had not seen A-1 staying in their house at night and he could not say the dates on which the A-1 took his sister to Guwahati, Jorhat and Dibrugarh. PW-3 has categorically deposed that he had not seen his sisters going with the A-1 to Guwahati, Jorhat and Dibrugarh. 14. During cross-examination, PW-3 has stated that he had not seen A-1 staying in their house at night and he could not say the dates on which the A-1 took his sister to Guwahati, Jorhat and Dibrugarh. PW-3 has categorically deposed that he had not seen his sisters going with the A-1 to Guwahati, Jorhat and Dibrugarh. PW-3 has also denied that he had deposed falsely in the matter and has denied that he had asked for Rs. 7,00,000/-from the A-1 and on his refusal, had come up with a false case against him. This witness has also denied of having falsely implicated his mother as she could have revealed the truth. Further, the PW-3 has denied the suggestion made by the defense that he had not stated before the police that on 30-03-2017, when their family members and uncles joined in a get together, after the guests had left, the accused A-1 came to their house and asked for a glass of water from his sister ‘J’. At that time, he was taking his lunch. When the accused A-1 asked for water ‘J’ told him that they are maintaining a snake by giving water and then he had asked ‘J’ as to why she has uttered these words, she did not give any direct reply. 15. PW-4 Sri Dilip Saikia is the father of the victim girls. He has deposed before the court that A-2 is his wife and A-1 was known to him. A-1 used to frequently visit their shop. The victim ‘D’ and ‘J’ are his daughters. They were twins. Presently their age was about 18 years and both of them were reading in Class-X at the Namti Girls School. The A-1 used to visit their residence since about past 07 years. He had to remain away from home consecutively for 3/4 days in a week in connection with his business. PW-4 has stated that he had heard that A-1 used to come to his house. On 30-09-2017, at about 08:00 pm, when he returned home from Sonari, he did not find anyone at home. His brother Monai Saikia told him that as the A-1 had misbehaved with his daughters, all the family members went to Namti Police Station. At about 09:00 pm, one boy from the neighbourhood took him to Namti Police Station on the plea that he had been called by the Police officer. His brother Monai Saikia told him that as the A-1 had misbehaved with his daughters, all the family members went to Namti Police Station. At about 09:00 pm, one boy from the neighbourhood took him to Namti Police Station on the plea that he had been called by the Police officer. At the Namti Police Station the officer informed him that his wife had fled away with one man. He had seen his son and two daughters at the Namti Police Station but did not ask them as to why they were there. Thereafter, he returned home and at about 12:00 midnight, his children also returned home. On the next day, during the evening hours, his wife returned home. During the cross-examination, PW-4 has denied that since the A-1 had recently retired from service they had asked for Rs. 7,00,000/-from him and on his refusal, they concocted a false story and lodged a case against him. PW-4 had also denied the suggestion that they had implicated the A-2 since she could have told the truth. 16. Smti. Mira Devi Saikia is the aunt of the victim girls and she was examined by the prosecution as PW-5. This witness has deposed that the A-2 is the wife of her husband’s cousin and A-1 was known to her. She had seen the A-1 visiting the house of A-2 since last 07 years, i.e. since the time she came to the village after her marriage. Victims ‘D’ and ‘J’ are the twin daughters of A-2. About 7/8 months back, while she and ‘J’ went to field for cultivation ‘J’ had informed her with some hesitation that her mother A-2 had compelled her and ‘D’ to establish physical relationship with the A-1. She has also stated that due to some skin problem of ‘D’ her mother had sent her with the A-1 to Jorhat for medical consultation. The A-1 kept ‘D’ in a hotel and established physical relationship with her against her will. ‘J’ had also told her that A-1 had taken her to Guwahati and attempted to establish physical relationship with her but he failed due to the resistance offered by her. Having come to know about this she had asked her to inform the matter to her brother and father. ‘J’ had also told her that A-1 had taken her to Guwahati and attempted to establish physical relationship with her but he failed due to the resistance offered by her. Having come to know about this she had asked her to inform the matter to her brother and father. After about a month when the A-1 came to the house of the victims ‘J’ misbehaved with the A-1 in presence of her brother and thereafter, the twin had reported the incident that had happened with them. While the brother of ‘D’ tried to assault the A-1, A-2 had protected him and thereafter, both of them fled the place. The above incident was reported to her by ‘J’. 17. PW-6 Sri Pranab Dutta is the next door neighbour of the victims and A-2. This witness has deposed that he had seen the A-1 frequently visit the resident of A-2. About 7/8 months ago, at about 06:00 pm, while he was in his shop, on hearing hue and cry, he went to the house of the accused A-2 and saw that Bibhuti Saikia (PW-3) had scolded A-1. PW-6 has stated that PW-3 had informed him that the A-1, by taking his sister ‘J’ and ‘D’ to Dibrugarh and Jorhat committed misdeeds with them and asked him for advice as to what he could do with the accused (A-1). When he enquired about the incident from ‘D’ and ‘J’ accused (A-1) fled away with the help of A-2. He had also heard a hue and cry of A-2 and she left the house. Several villagers had gathered there and then he returned to his shop. The matter was informed to the police. Subsequently, on being asked by ‘D’ and ‘J’ they told him that A-1 had taken them to the hotels and after showing pornography, made physical relationship with them. During his cross-examination the PW6 had admitted that he had not made the above statement before the I/O. 18. PW-7 Ashim Dutta is another neighbour and he knew the accused persons as well as the victims who were the twin daughters of A-2. This witness has also deposed that he had seen the A-1 frequently visit the house of A-2 and also heard from the villagers that both of them had maintained an illicit relationship. PW-7 Ashim Dutta is another neighbour and he knew the accused persons as well as the victims who were the twin daughters of A-2. This witness has also deposed that he had seen the A-1 frequently visit the house of A-2 and also heard from the villagers that both of them had maintained an illicit relationship. The PW-7 has stated that on the date of filing of the FIR one of the sisters, on finding him on the road, had complained that the A-1, by taking her to Dibrugarh or Jorhat in the pretext of consultation with skin care doctor, after keeping her in the hotel, had committed rape on her. According to PW-7 the victim girl had also stated that while she had informed the matter to her mother, she refused to divulge the same to others. She had also stated that her mother had forced the twin sisters to go with the A-1 and when they showed reluctance she used to scold them. On that he had advised them to inform the matter to the villagers. Accordingly, a meeting was held. Several villagers gathered at the Perabhari L.P. School and after discussion, resolved to take the matter to police. PW-7 has also stated that he was in the meeting and in the villagers meeting also, both the twin sisters had narrated the incident. However, during his cross-examination, the PW-7 had denied that he had not stated so before the I/O. 19. PW-8 Dr. Duplay Patir was the Doctor who had examined the victim girls ‘D’ and ‘J’ on 02-10-2017 while on duty at Sivasagar Civil Hospital as Sr. Medical and Health Officer. The opinion of the Doctor was that the victim ‘D’ was aged above 18 years and she did not have any signs of recent sexual intercourse. The Doctor had opined that the victim did not have any signs of pregnancy nor did she have any signs of injury on her body and on private parts. Similar is the opinion of the PW-8 with regard to victim ‘J’. During his cross-examination, PW-8 has stated that the hymen of a young girl may be torn due to cycling, running etc. It may also be torn due to use of fingers for irritation for skin diseases. The Doctor has further deposed that the victim ‘D’ did not complain of any skin disease to him. 20. During his cross-examination, PW-8 has stated that the hymen of a young girl may be torn due to cycling, running etc. It may also be torn due to use of fingers for irritation for skin diseases. The Doctor has further deposed that the victim ‘D’ did not complain of any skin disease to him. 20. PW-9 Sri Rabindra Hazarika is the Investigating Officer (I/O) who had conducted the investigation in connection with Namti P.S. Case No. 21/2017. PW-9 has deposed that on 30-09-2017, while he was posted as O/C, Namti Police Station, at about 08:00 pm, he had received one written ejahar from victim ‘D’, based on which, Namti P.S. Case No. 21/2017 was registered under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. He then took over the matter for investigation. During the course of investigation, he had examined the informant-cum-victim ‘D’ as well as the other victim ‘J’, their brother Bibhuti Saikia (PW-3) and others. On the same night, he went to the place of occurrence and drew a sketch map. He had apprehended the A-1 from his house and also the A-2 after searching for her. On the next day the victims were sent for their medical examination and also to the court for recording their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. PW-9 has further stated that during investigation, he had collected the birth certificate of the victims, as produced by the informant, where the date of birth of the victims was mentioned as 17-06-1999. 21. On being transferred, he had handed over the case diary to his successor. During his cross-examination, PW-9 has replied that except Dilip Saikia (PW-4) he had recorded the statement of all other witnesses at the police station on the same night when FIR was received. He has further stated that he did not visit Jorhat, Dibrugarh or Guwahati as the victim did not specifically disclose the name of the hotels of those places or the name of the Doctors. In his cross-examination, the I/O has brought on record the contradictions in the statement of the victims ‘D’ and ‘J’ as well as the other witnesses which are reproduced herein-below for ready reference. PW-9 has deposed that witness ‘D’ in her statement before him recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. did not state that “my mother has forcibly sent me with the accused Sri Kumud Ch. PW-9 has deposed that witness ‘D’ in her statement before him recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. did not state that “my mother has forcibly sent me with the accused Sri Kumud Ch. Borgohain to Dibrugah; that in the hotel accused Kumud introduced me as his daughter by changing my title; that I did not inform the matter to my mother as she did not listen to us and remain influenced from Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain; that from Jorhat when my mother called Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain, he informed my mother that he will stay at residence of his known person; that accused took me to Jorhat thrice and committed rape on all the three occasions; that out of this, twice I was taken for medical check up and once for visit; that in absence of my father my mother used to call Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain and he used to stay at our home for night; that while he come to our residence, Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain used touch my body; that accused took my sister Jimpy to Guwahati twice and also committed misdeed with her and once Jimpy went to Guwhati with my mother and once alone; that we have reported the matter to our aunt Mira Devi Saikia, that just before filing of the case, at night hours, when Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain came to our house and I and Jimpy did not responded well to treat him, he rebuked us, that on this my elder brother Bibhuti Saikia asked about the reason and we narrated the incidents of misbehaves and rape on us by Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain, that on knowing this my brother scolded Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain but my mother protected the accused Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain; that even our mother asked us to beg apology but we refused; that on hearing hue and cry at our house, neighbouring peoples gathered at our house; that my brother also slapped the accused Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain and on this my mother sent back the accused from back side of the house.” However, the said witness has stated about rape at Jorhat. Witness ‘J’ in her statement before him recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. did not state that “Accused Kumud also used to visit the shop opened my mother and came in touch; that in absence of my father, my mother used to call Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain to our residence and stay with mother; that while he used to stay in our residence, since last 6-7 years my mother asked Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain to sleep with us; while sleeping with us Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohainused to commit rape on me and Dimpy; though I informed the matter to mother, she disbelieves us and remained mum; at Guwahati, accused also used to bring drink and with fruits forced us to consume drink; that after this accused tried to take me again outside but I boldly refused; that accused took my sister Dimpy to Jorhat and Dibrugarh for medical consultation for her skin problem, that Dimpy reported to me that accused Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain has committed rape on her at Dibrugarh and Jorhat; that she also told the matter to her best friend Queen Dutta; that accused Kumud Chandra Borgohain committed rape on Dimpy on several occasions; that I have also informed the matter to NGO secretary Farid Islam Hazarika; that just before filing of the case, a feast was organized at our residence on coming of my uncles, that after the dinner, when Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain came to our house and I and Dimpy did not respond well to treat him and on this Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain rebuked us; that on this my elder brother Bibhuti Saikia asked about the reason and we narrated the incidents of misbehaves and rape on us by Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain; that on knowing this my brother scolded Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain but my mother protected the accused Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain from public outrage; that on hearing hue and cry at our house, neighbouring peoples gathered at our house and on this my mother sent back the accused from back side of the house.” But in her statement she has only stated that accused Kumud took her to Guwahat and by keeping her in a rented house for two days, committed rape on her. Witness Bibhuti Saikia in his statement before him recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. did not state that “On 30.09.2017 when other family members and uncles joined in a get together, after leaving the guest, accused Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain came to our house and asked for a glass of water from my sister Jimpy Saikia. At that time, I was taking my lunch. On asking water by accused, Jimpy told that by giving milk they are maintaining snake. On this I asked Jimpy why she uttered this word. She did not give me direct reply.” This witness also did not state before him that “On knowing this I made altercation with Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain. On hearing hue and cry at our house, neighbouring peoples gathered at our house. On arrival of villagers, accused by leaving his scooty in our house, flee away there from. On this my mother also by spaying kerosene attempted to set our shop on fire but failed and she left the place.” Witness Dilip Saikia in his statement before him recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. stated that “he lodged an FIR.” Said witness Dilip Saikia lodged a FIR at Namti PS on 29.10.2017 alleging inter alia that Kumud Ch. Borgohain abducted Biju Saikia by alluring her. On that FIR Namti PS case No. 20/2017 was registered. Ext. A is the certified copy of the FIR lodged by Dilip Saikia. Witness Mira Devi Saikia in her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. did not state that “while I and Jimpy went to field for cultivation, with hesitation Jimpi informed me that her mother Biju Saikia compelled her and Dimpi Saikia to establish physical relation with Kumud Chandra Borgohain; that she also stated that due to skin problem of Dimpi, her mother sent Dimpi with accused Kumud to Jorhat for medical consultation; and kept Dimpi in a hotel and established physical relation with Dimpi against her will; that Jimpi also stated that accused Kumud has taken her to Guwahati and attempted to establish physical relation with her but failed due to resistance by Jimpi, that on knowing this, I asked her to inform the matter to her brother and father.” However she has stated that she came to know from Dimpi about rape on her by accused Kumud. This witness also did not state that “After about a month of reporting the matter to me, when accused came to the house of Dimpi and Jimpi, in presence of their brother, Jimpi misbehaved Kumud and there after the twins reported the incident happened with them to their brother. While brother of Dimpi tried to assault Kumud, Biju Saikia saved Kumud and thereafter they both flee away. All above was reported to me by Jimpi. She also stated me that while keeping her in hotel, Kumud has disclosed that Dimpi was his daughter by changing his title.” Witness Pranab Dutta in his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. did not state that “on going to his residence, Bibhuti Saikia by informing me that Kumud Saikia by taking his sisters Jimpi and Dimpi to Dibrugarh and Jorhat, committed misdeeds with them and asked me as to what he should do with accused Kumud; that Kumud Flee away with the help of Biju Saikia; that Dimpi and Jimpi told me and others that Kumud Bogohain by taking them to hotels after showing them pornography, made a physical relation with them.” Witness Ashim Dutta in his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. did not state that “On the date of filing FIR, one of the sisters on finding me on road, complained that Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain by taking her to Dibrugarh or Jorhat in the name of consultation to skin doctor; that her mother forced both the twin sisters to go with Sri Kumud Chandra Borgohain and on their reluctance, she used to scold them; that a meeting was held and several villagers gathered at Perabhari L.P. School and after discussion, resolved to take the matter to police; that there was a quarrel in the house of Biju Saikia on this matter; that I learnt that accused Kumud had to flee away by leaving behind his scooty.” 22. PW-10 Sri Biraj Kumar Das was the O/C of Namti Police Station who took over the case diary from PW-9 and on completion of investigation, submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons. 23. Smti. Queen Dutta who was examined as court witness No. 1 (CW-1) has stated that the victims ‘D’ and ‘J’ were known to her as classmates and they studied together at the Namti Girls School up to Class-IX. 23. Smti. Queen Dutta who was examined as court witness No. 1 (CW-1) has stated that the victims ‘D’ and ‘J’ were known to her as classmates and they studied together at the Namti Girls School up to Class-IX. The accused persons were known to her and she had heard from the villagers that a case has been lodged by ‘J’ and ‘D’ though she did not know against whom the case was filed. She came to know from the villagers that Police had came to the house of ‘D’ and ‘J’ that someone was arrested from their house. At the time of lodging of the case, she herself, ‘D’ and ‘J’ were all studying in Class-IX. Thereafter, she did not meet ‘D’ and ‘J’. In her cross-examination, the CW-1 has also stated that she got married about two years ago as she had failed in class examination and thereafter, left her study. 24. Mr. Farid Islam Hazarika was examined as CW-2. This witness has deposed that he knew the accused A-2 as her daughter was a student of a section of a project but he did not know accused A-1. Last year, he was the project coordinator of NGO Naba Udit Samaj. Both ‘D’ and ‘J’ were the students under the aforesaid project. He had heard that there was commotion at Namti Police Station last year and had also heard that ‘J’ had lodged a case at the Police Station as she was sexually harassed. But he did not know who had sexually harassed one of them. After hearing the matter he went to the house of ‘D’ and ‘J’ to know about the incident but they were not found in their house as by that time, they had gone to their maternal uncle’s house. He came to know from the villagers that the mother of ‘D’ and ‘J’ was arrested and sent to jail. As he was sent somewhere else in connection with his duties, he did not meet ‘J’ or ‘D’. During cross-examination, CW-2 has replied that he had heard about the matter only after lodging of the FIR. ‘J’ and ‘D’ did not inform the NGO about the alleged matter. 25. As he was sent somewhere else in connection with his duties, he did not meet ‘J’ or ‘D’. During cross-examination, CW-2 has replied that he had heard about the matter only after lodging of the FIR. ‘J’ and ‘D’ did not inform the NGO about the alleged matter. 25. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the A-1 has stated in reply to question No. 17 that Bibhuti (PW-3) used to take money from him sometimes and on that day, he had demanded Rs. 7,00,000/-from him and when he refused, the altercation started. Then his mother had saved him. In reply to question No. 18, A-1 has stated that he did not go out of the house from the backside but went out from the front side. 26. A-2 had also stated in her statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that her husband used to borrow money from A-1. In reply to question No. 44 the A-2 has stated that the A-1 had installed electric connection in their house by hooking as he was an electrician. So villagers did not like him. 27. On the basis of the evidence available on record and after taking note of the statement made by the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the learned trial court had held that the charge brought against both the accused persons stood proved. The relevant observations of the learned court below leading to the above conclusion appears in paragraph 41 of the judgment, which is reproduced herein-below for ready reference: “41. In the instant case if we carefully examine the evidence on record and the statements made by the accused persons during their examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. it becomes clear that the accused Kumud Ch. Borgohain made his entry into the house of the victims through his acts of helping the family by illegally providing electric connection by hooking and also by providing financial help. The father of the victim girls used to remain out of his house of his business. The brother of the victim girls is a driver by profession and so naturally he also used to remain outside in connection with his job. The accused took this opportunity and initially developed an illicit relation with the mother of the victim girls. Then his eyes fell on the minor victim girls. The brother of the victim girls is a driver by profession and so naturally he also used to remain outside in connection with his job. The accused took this opportunity and initially developed an illicit relation with the mother of the victim girls. Then his eyes fell on the minor victim girls. By the time the mother of the victim girls was totally under his dominion. The accused took the opportunity and materialized his vicious design and the mother of the victim girls knowingly and intentionally aided the accused in fulfilling his lust by sending her minor daughters with him to various places in spite of their reluctance. So the mother of the victim girls abetted the accused Kumud Ch. Borgohain in commission of the crime.” 28. As noted above, the conviction of both the appellants is primarily based on the evidence of victim girls, i.e.PWs-1 and 2 and also the fact that there was evidence to show that the mother of the victims, i.e.A-2 had maintained an illicit relationship with the accused A-1. Law is well settled that in a proceeding initiated under Section 4 of the POCSO Act conviction can be based solely on the version of the prosecutrix if the same is found to be credible. Therefore, it would be essential for this Court to examine as to whether the version of the PW-1 and 2 is trustworthy and inspires the confidence of the Court. 29. On a careful reading of the evidence adduced by PW-1, we find that the witness has made some broad accusation against the accused persons by stating that on the insistence of her mother, she had accompanied the A-1 to Jorhat and Dibrugarh on a number of occasions where she stayed in a hotel and it was at that time, the A-1 had committed rape on her inside the hotel room. However, the PW-1 has neither mentioned about the date of her visit to Jorhat or Dibrugarh nor has she provided the name of the hotel in which she had stayed. There is also no evidence produced by the PW-1 to show that during the relevant period of time she was suffering from any skin ailments or that she was ever examined by a skin Doctor. 30. There is also no evidence produced by the PW-1 to show that during the relevant period of time she was suffering from any skin ailments or that she was ever examined by a skin Doctor. 30. Likewise, PW-2, i.e.the other victim has also not given any particulars as regards the date and the number of occasions when she had gone to Guwahati along with the accused A-1, who had allegedly committed rape on her. PW-2 had stated that the A-1 used to commit rape on ‘D’, i.e. PW-1 and though she had informed the matter to her mother she disbelieved them. However, according to PW-1, the accused had committed rape on her as well. PW-2 had also stated that A-1 used to visit their residence since the year 2006 and since last 6/7 years her mother had asked the A-1 to sleep with them. However, from the evidence of PW-9 it has come out that PWs-1 and 2 did not say so before the I/O while recording their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Rather, it can be seen that there is material improvement in their deposition which has been duly proved by the I/O. 31. We also find from the testimonies of the PWs-1 and 2 that the A-1 has been coming to their house since 2006 and their mother has been asking them to sleep with A1 since past several years. But the victims had never informed the matter to anyone. However, they have spoken to PWs-5 and 6 only after the incident which took place on 30-09-2017. Since the victims could have to spoken to others about the incident after 30-09-2017, there is no explanation as to why they remained silent for so long even if their mother did not pay any heed to them. 32. PW-3, who is the brother of the victim girls, has clearly deposed that he did not see the A-1 staying in their house at night nor did he see A-1 taking his sisters to Guwahati, Jorhat or Dibruarh. He had also not seen his sisters going with the A-1 to Guwahati, Jorhat and Dibrugarh. The evidence of PW-3 also indicates that PW-2 used to live in the same house along with PWs-1 and 3 and their parents. He had also not seen his sisters going with the A-1 to Guwahati, Jorhat and Dibrugarh. The evidence of PW-3 also indicates that PW-2 used to live in the same house along with PWs-1 and 3 and their parents. However, the evidence of PW-3 clearly contradicts the version of the PWs-1 and 2 insofar as the stay of the A-1 in their house at night and the A-1 taking the victim girls to Jorhat, Dibrugarh and Guwahati is concerned. Moreover from the evidence of PW-9 the contradictions in the evidence of PW3 also stood established. The I/O PW-9 had also proved the contradiction in the statements of PWs-5, 6 and 7 which would be apparent from the cross-examination of the I/O. 33. It is evident from the materials on record that the father of the victim girls, i.e.PW-4 had lodged an ejahar before the O/C, Namti Police Station on 29-09-2017 stating that the A-1 had taken away his wife, i.e.A-2 at around 03:00 p.m. on 29-09-2017. A-1 had visited their house for last 10/12 years and on returning home, he came to know about the incident from his children. According to PW-4 he came to know that the accused had tried to commit bad act on them. Based on the ejahar dated 29-09-2017, Namti P.S. Case No. 20/2017 was registered under Section 366 IPC against the accused A-1 but eventually on completion of investigation, the I/O had submitted Final Report in the aforesaid police case. In the final report, it has been mentioned that the proceedings had been initiated due to mistake of fact. What is surprising to note herein that in his deposition before the court, the PW-4 has not mentioned about the ejahar dated 29-09-2017 and the registration of Namti P.S. Case No. 20/2017 on the basis of said ejahar. 34. We have noticed that in the ejahar filed on 29-09-2017, the PW-4 has not made any direct allegation of sexual assault committed on his daughters by the accused. As a matter of fact the PW-4 has ever denied of having stated before the police that he had lodged a FIR on the previous day. Even his son, i.e. PW-3 has denied that on the previous day, i.e. on 29-09-2017 his father has lodged an FIR against the A-1 for kidnapping his mother from their house. As a matter of fact the PW-4 has ever denied of having stated before the police that he had lodged a FIR on the previous day. Even his son, i.e. PW-3 has denied that on the previous day, i.e. on 29-09-2017 his father has lodged an FIR against the A-1 for kidnapping his mother from their house. What is to be noted herein is that as per the testimonies of PWs-1 and 2, they have informed their brother PW-3 about the sexual harassment and misbehavior of A-1 only on 30-09-2017 and before that they had spoken about the same only to their mother. But the ejahar dated 29-09-2017 lodged by the PW-4 also mentioned about the A-1 trying to commit bad things with his daughters. There is, however, no evidence to indicate as to who had informed the father of the victims about the incident on 29-09-2017. 35. We have also noticed that according to the PWs-1 and 2 the incident of alleged rape took place over the period of 6/7 years prior to the lodging of the ejahar and according to the PW-1, the A-1 had taken her to Dibrugarh in the year 2016. According to PW-2, the A-1 had taken her to Guwahati in the year 2016. However, the complaint was lodged only on 30-09-2017 i.e.after a delay of more than a year and there is not even an iota of explanation as regards the delay in lodging the ejahar. The unexplained delay in lodging the ejahar, in our opinion, would have a fatal consequence in the prosecution case, in the facts and circumstances of this case. 36. PW-2 has deposed that she had informed about the A-1 committing rape on ‘D’ to the NGO Secretary (CW-2) but in his deposition the CW-2 has denied of having any knowledge about the incident. Rather he has stated that he had heard about the matter only after the lodging of the FIR but the victim girls ‘J’ and ‘D’ did not inform the NGO about the same. According to the PW-2 the CW-1 was aware of the whole incident but from the evidence of CW-1 what transpires is that she did not support the aforesaid claim of the PW-1. 37. According to the PW-2 the CW-1 was aware of the whole incident but from the evidence of CW-1 what transpires is that she did not support the aforesaid claim of the PW-1. 37. The attention of this Court has also been invited to the fact that the evidence-in-chief of the PWs-1 and 2 were recorded initially on 10-01-2018 and thereafter, their further examination-in-chief was deferred till 05-04-2018 on which date, the PWs-1 and 2 had appeared for their re-examination and exhibited their birth certificate, which mentions 17-06-1999 as their date of birth. In between, evidence of other witness, viz. PWs- 3 and 4 had been recorded. There is no explanation as to why the evidence of PWs1 and 2 was recorded after a break of nearly three months. 38. As mentioned above, the medical evidence did not support the prosecution claim but on the contrary the same goes to show that there was no sign of any sexual assault on both the victim girls. 39. According to PW-5 victim ‘J’ had told her that the attempt made by the A-1 to establish physical relationship with her had failed due to the resistance offered by her. The aforesaid statement of PW-5 clearly contradicts the evidence of PW-2 who has stated that the A-1 had sexually assaulted her at Guwahati. 40. From the complaint dated 29-09-2017, it is apparent that the father of the victims, i.e.PW-4 was at home on the previous day of the incident and he had also gone to the police station in the evening of 30-09-2017 but in his deposition, he has only mentioned about his wife going with the A-1 but did not even ask his children why they had come to the police station. 41. From a careful analysis of the evidence available on record, we find that there are material contradictions/ omissions/ improvements in the version of the prosecution witnesses which were duly proved by the I/O during his cross-examination. Coupled with that, there is unexplained delay in lodging the ejahar and the witnesses PWs-3 and 4 has also disowned that on the previous day the PW-4 being the father of the victim girls had lodged a complaint projecting a different version. Moreover, in the complaint dated 30-09-2017, the said fact has also not been mentioned. 42. Coupled with that, there is unexplained delay in lodging the ejahar and the witnesses PWs-3 and 4 has also disowned that on the previous day the PW-4 being the father of the victim girls had lodged a complaint projecting a different version. Moreover, in the complaint dated 30-09-2017, the said fact has also not been mentioned. 42. We have also noted that A-1 had stated before the court that the incident was triggered when the PW-3 had demanded a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-from him which he has received on retirement but when he has refused to pay the amount, the incident took place. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has not at all been dealt with by the learned trial court while convicting the accused persons. 43. It is no doubt correct that the evidence available on record goes to show that there was an illicit relationship between the A-1 and A-2 and also the fact that the A-1 was a frequent visitor to the shop and the house of the A-2. However, the evidence on record does not establish the fact that he had taken either of the victim girls out to Jorhat, Dibrugarh or Guwahati and had committed sexual assault on them or the fact that A-2, being the mother of the victims, had any complicity in the matter. Rather we are of the view that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, more particularly, the evidence of PWs-1 to 6 are full of material contradiction and the prosecution story has not been supported either by the medical evidence or by the CWs-1 and 2. We are also of the view that the testimonies of PWs-1 and 2 appear to be wholly untrustworthy and the same do not inspire the confidence of this Court. 44. Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act permit the court to draw presumption as to certain offences and also culpable mental state. However, from the evaluation of the evidence brought on record, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the prosecution has failed to prima facie establish the charge brought against the accused persons under Section 6 of the POCSO Act read with Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC. As such the question of drawing presumption against the accused under Section 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, 2012 does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case. As such the question of drawing presumption against the accused under Section 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, 2012 does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we find sufficient force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the matter due to the illicit relationship between the A-1 and A-2 and also on refusal of the A-1 to pay the amount demanded by the brother of the victims. The conviction of the A-1 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act read with Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC is hereby set aside and the accused person (A-1) is acquitted. Likewise, the conviction of the A-2 under Section 17 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and under Section 109 read with Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC is also set aside and the accused person (A-2) is acquitted. We are informed that both the accused persons are presently in the jail. We, therefore, direct that unless the custodial detention of the accused persons/ appellants are required in connection with any other proceeding, they be forthwith released from jail. Registry to send back the LCR. Before parting with the record, we wish to place our appreciation on record as regards the services rendered by Mr. Mrinmoy Dutta, learned amicus curiae appearing for the A-2 and direct the Registry to make available to him just remuneration as per the notified fee structure applicable to the amicus curiae.