S.S. SHINDE, J.

1. Criminal Appeal No. 919 of 2014 filed by accused No.1 Datta Somnath Jadhav (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter would be referred as accused No.1), is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 28th October, 2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag thereby convicting accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(b) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 5(c), 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (for short, “POCSO Act”) and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. The Trial Court also convicted accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 292, 509 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 14 of POCSO Act read with section 67 B of Information Technology Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The Trial Court also convicted accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 342 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. The Trial Court also convicted accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five months. All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently.

2. Criminal Appeal No. 934 of 2014 filed by Vanita Vasant Patil (for the sake of brevity hereinafter would be referred as accused No.2) is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 28th October, 2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag thereby convicting her for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(b), 109 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 5(c), 6 and 17 of POSCO Act and sentencing her to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The Trial Court also convicted accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Sections 292, 509, 109 of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 14 and 17 of POSCO Act read with Section 67 B of Information Technology Act and sentenced her to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five months. The Trial Court also convicted accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 342 of IPC and sentenced her to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently.

3. Criminal Appeal No. 160 of 2015 is filed by the State for enhancement of the sentence imposed upon accused No.1 and accused No.2.

4. All these three Criminal Appeals are arising out of one and the same Judgment and Order passed by the trial Court, hence the same are being decided by this common Judgment.

5. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under :

(A) Complainant/victim girl (with a view to conceal an identity, name is not disclosed) resides at village Mothi Jui, Tal.Uran along with her mother, two sisters and brother. Her father Tulshiram Bhoir is no more. In the year 2013, she was taking education as regular student in VIIth standard, in Z.P. Primary School at village Mothi Jui. Accused No.1 was employed as teacher in the said school. At the relevant time and prioir to the incident, he was discharging his duties, as class teacher of the victim. While accused No.2 was working as head mistress in the said school. At about two months prior to filing of the complaint, during the first recess in the school, at about 12.00 noon, complainant/victim girl was playing in the school premises along-with other students. At that