1. Delay condoned.

2. Heard Mr.Parthiv K.Goswami, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Mrinalini Ramesh, learned counsel who appears on advance notice on behalf of the State and accepts notice on behalf of the State. Hence, formal service of notice is dispensed with on the State.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner draws attention of the Court to the evidence of PW11 the investigating officer and more particularly to page 91 of the paper book (pdf page 112). The Investigating Officer (PW11) states that they had received the radiological report, where the age of the victim has shown as above 18 years and below 19 years but since the school certificate revealed the age as on 08.05.2008 to be 15 years, they did not annex the radiological report to the chargesheet.

4. Mr.Goswami, learned senior counsel contends that not only this, there is also a dispute with regard to the age which would seriously impact the conviction under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012(for short POCSO Act). He further submits that sentence imposed is of life, which according to learned senior counsel, though not specified, it could be interpreted to mean life till natural death since Section 6 of POCSO Act provides to that effect.

5. One other question that arises is when Section 6 of POCSO prescribes a minimum sentence of 20 years, whether a sentence of life simplicitor could be imposed which ordinarily could involve a mandatory minimum sentence of 14 years.

6. Leave granted.

7. The Bail prayer/application of the appellants is rejected for the time being.

8. Let the original records be called for and digital copy of the same be given to both the sides.

9. List the appeal in due course.