JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. 1. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the appellants and the learned counsels appearing for the State at length. 2. This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 04.08.2016 and order of sentence dated 05.08.2016 passed in S.C./S.T. Case No. 16 of 2015 whereby and whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge, Jamtara convicted the appellants under Sections 376D of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of POCSO Act and sentenced them to undergo RI for 20 years with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Sections 376D of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1250 of 2016 submits that the statement of the victim is doubtful. He submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the factum of rape. He further submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case which would be evident from the statement recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C of the appellant. Md. Salim @ Salim Mian is the member of the Jungle Raksha Committee who prohibits the villagers from collecting the fire wood from the forest and that is the reason this appellant has been falsely implicated as the family of the victim regularly violates the forest law. He further submits that no offence under section 376D of the Indian Penal Code is made out in this case. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 453 of 2017 submits that there is no material to convict this appellant in this case. The witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. If the statement of the witnesses are scrutinized in a proper manner the only conclusion would be that he has been falsely implicated in this case. 5. The learned counsel for the State submits that the medical evidence, statement of the victim and her friends corroborates the factum of rape. Further there are eye-witnesses who had seen these appellants catching her, when they were trying to flee after the chase. This fact clearly suggests that these appellants were guilty of commission of rape. 6. The prosecution case is based on the information of the victim. She stated that on 26.04.2015 at about 10:00 the victim along with her friends went to the forest. Both the appellants were present there. This fact clearly suggests that these appellants were guilty of commission of rape. 6. The prosecution case is based on the information of the victim. She stated that on 26.04.2015 at about 10:00 the victim along with her friends went to the forest. Both the appellants were present there. They terrorized the girls and caught hold of the victim and disrobed her. When she protested, by gagging her they committed rape upon her. The girl was also threatened. The companion of the victim fled from the place of occurrence. An alarm was raised by them, when several villagers came and caught hold of the accused Md. Salim and the other fled away. On the aforesaid information FIR was registered being Narayanpur PS Case No. 80 of 2015 under Sections 376D of the Indian Penal Code. Section 10 of POCSO Act and Section 3(I)(XII) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were later on added. 7. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 376D of the Indian Penal Code, Section 10 of POCSO Act and Section 3(I)(XII) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the appellants were put on trial. 8. On the basis of chargesheet and materials available on record cognizance was taken and case was committed to Court of Sessions where charges were framed under Sections 376D of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(1)(XII) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and trial proceeded. 9. To prove the prosecution case, altogether 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, who are as under:- i. PW1 :- Laxman Paharia ii. PW2 :- Urmila Devi iii. PW3 :- Informant (victim) iv. PW4 :- Rana Pratap Singh v. PW5 :- Shiv Dayal Prasad Paswan vi. PW6 :- Rajkumar Singh vii. PW7 :- Somnath Singh viii. PW8:- Kajal Kumari Singh ix. PW9:- Kiran Kumari x. PW10:- Soni Kumari xi. PW11:- Surya Mani Tripathi (J.M.) xii. PW12:- Dr. Lilly Marry Bilung 10. Following documents have been exhibited : i. Ext.1 – Written Report ii. Ext.2 – Signature of victim on statement under section 164 Cr.PC. iii. Ext.2/1 – Signature of Suryamani Tripathi on statement under section 164 Cr.PC of the victim iv. Ext.3 & 3/1 – Witting and signature of Shivdayal Pd. Paswan on Seizure list. v. Ext.4 – Medical Report vi. Ext.5 – FSL Report 11. Ext.2 – Signature of victim on statement under section 164 Cr.PC. iii. Ext.2/1 – Signature of Suryamani Tripathi on statement under section 164 Cr.PC of the victim iv. Ext.3 & 3/1 – Witting and signature of Shivdayal Pd. Paswan on Seizure list. v. Ext.4 – Medical Report vi. Ext.5 – FSL Report 11. The defence has also examined one of the witness to the prove his innocence. 12. The prosecutrix is PW3 who stated that she along with Kiran, Soni and Kajal went to the forest to collect wood. The appellant Md. Salim and Md. Nizamuddin caught her and the other girls fled as they were threatened. She was disrobed and both of them committed rape upon her. One of her companion ran towards the village and raised alarm when several villagers like Rajkumar Singh, Somnath Singh and Ranapratap Singh came there and caught Md. Salim but Md. Nizamuddin escaped. Her mother also went there and brought her back. Her fardbeyan was marked as Exhibit-1. She admitted that she had even recorded her statement under section 164 of the Cr.PC. The same was also marked as Exhibit-2. She identified both these appellants in the Court. She admitted that she had gone to the jungle on that day as the said day was holiday. From her statement we find that she had categorically supported the factum of rape which was committed upon her and also identified the appellants as the perpetrator of crime. 13. The doctor is PW12 who examined the victim. Though she stated that there was no mark of external injury found over her body but she stated that there was old rupture of hymen and there was mild tear in the posterior fourchette. She opined that the girl may have been sexually assaulted. As per the radiologist report, the girl is below 15 years. In the cross examination she stated that as per her opinion there was penetration. This medical report was prepared by her and it bears the signature of other doctors like Dr. Poonam Toppo and Dr. Nilesh Kumar. The report was marked as Exhibit-4. From the aforesaid report, we find that the statement of the victim that she was raped has been proved and substantiated. 14. PW4 is Ranapratap Singh, PW6 is Rajkumar Singh and PW7 is Somnath Singh. They all are independent witnesses. Poonam Toppo and Dr. Nilesh Kumar. The report was marked as Exhibit-4. From the aforesaid report, we find that the statement of the victim that she was raped has been proved and substantiated. 14. PW4 is Ranapratap Singh, PW6 is Rajkumar Singh and PW7 is Somnath Singh. They all are independent witnesses. They stated that they were playing cricket when some girls ran from the side of jungle and told them that both these appellants have caught hold of the victim and are committing rape upon her. All these three persons rushed there and saw that appellants were committing rape upon the girl. They confronted them and caught one of the appellant and the other fled away. This is the consistent statement of these three witnesses i.e. PW4, PW6 and PW7. There is nothing to disbelieve them. 15. PW8, PW9 and PW10 are the three friends of the victim along with whom this victim went to the jungle. They also stated that these appellants caught hold of the victim and committed rape. It is these witnesses who had raised alarm when hearing such alarm PW4, PW6 and PW7 went to rescue the girl. Their statement is also not demolished. 16. PW2 is the mother of the girl who also stated that the victim had gone to the jungle to collect wood along with other girls. These appellants caught hold of her daughter when other girls fled and came to the village and narrated the story. She admitted that she had gone to the place of occurrence with the other villagers and saw these appellants. Md. Salim was caught but Md. Nizamuddin managed to escape. Her daughter was lying without the cloth and she rescued her. The fact that the mother of the victim had gone to the place is also supported by the other witnesses. 17. From the evidence, beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, it is proved that the victim who is less than 15 years was raped. The prosecution has also proved the involvement of these appellants as per the testimony of the eye-witnesses and victim that it is these appellants who had committed rape upon the victim. 18. All these facts have been well considered by the trial Court. We also independently considered the same and find no material to differ with the judgment of the trial Court. Thus there is no merit in these appeals. 19. 18. All these facts have been well considered by the trial Court. We also independently considered the same and find no material to differ with the judgment of the trial Court. Thus there is no merit in these appeals. 19. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1250 of 2016 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 453 of 2017 are dismissed. 20. The judgment of conviction dated 04.08.2016 and the order of sentence dated 05.08.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge, Jamtara in S.C./S.T. Case No. 16 of 2015 are affirmed. 21. Let a copy of the judgment along with the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith.