JUDGMENT :

Both these appeals are being decided by this common judgment since they are interconnected.

2. The challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of conviction and resultant order of sentence passed by learned Special Judge, Osmanabad, in Special (POCSO) Case No. 22 of 2015. The details of the conviction and the quantum of sentence are as under :—

Appellant Section Sentence In Criminal Appeal No. 329 of 2018 (Ajit) (i) Section 363 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for Six months. (ii) Section 366-A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for six months. (iii) Section 376(2)(i), (n) of Indian Penal Code. R.I. for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for two years. (iv) Sections 4 and 10 of POCSO Act No separate sentence In Criminal Appeal No. 282 of 2019 (Shailesh) (i) Section 363 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for Six months. (ii) Section 366-A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for six months.

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are as follows :—

PW1-“A” (prosecutrix) was resident of village “X” in District Osmanabad. She was 15 years of age at the relevant time. During her childhood, her mother passed away. The father of prosecutrix is alcoholic and mentally challenged as well. The prosecutrix was, therefore, residing along with her uncle and his family. Both the appellants were residing in the very village. The house of the appellant-Shailesh was just opposite the house of uncle of the prosecutrix. Appellant-Ajit and appellant-Shailesh are friends inter se. Ajit would, therefore, frequently visit the house of Shailesh. As such, acquaintance developed between the prosecutrix and Ajit.

4. It so happened that on 6-5-2015, Shailesh came to the house of the prosecutrix and told that Ajit was waiting outside. He asked the prosecutrix to join Ajit and if she would refuse to join, Ajit may kill her cousin. The prosecutrix, therefore, accompanied Ajit. He took the prosecutrix to Latur on his motorbike and kept her in a lodge overnight. He had sexual intercourse with her there without her consent. Since the prosecutrix was found missing from the house, her uncle and aunt took search for her. The aunt, PW2, lodged a report against Ajit on suspicion.

5. It is further case of the prosecution that Ajit then took the prosecutrix to Nanded and stayed there in a temple. Thereafter, both of them shifted to Aurangabad and stayed in one lodge. Ajit then took a room on rent and stayed therein for about a month. Ajit had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix many a time without her consent. At Aurangabad, he would leave the room bolting from outside. After little over a month, he brought the prosecutrix back to the village and left. She went to the house of her uncle. On the next day, i.e. on 12-6-2015, all of them went to the police station. The prosecutrix gave her statement. She was medically screened. On the basis of the FIR lodged by the prosecutrix, crime was registered for the offence punishable under section 363 of Indian Penal Code. After recording statement of the prosecutrix, offences under sections 366-A and 376(2)(i), (n) of Indian Penal Code and sections 4 and 10 of POCSO Act came to be invoked. Both the appellants were arrested. They were medically examined. Their clothes also came to be seized. Their blood samples were obtained. All the seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Statements of the persons acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, were recorded. On completion of investigation, both the appellants were proceeded against.

6. The trial Court framed Charge (Exh.4) against both of them. They pleaded no