IMPORTANT POINT
Conviction cannot be based on scanty evidence.

JUDGMENT

S.S. SHINDE, J.—Criminal Appeal No. 921 of 2014 filed by accused No.1 Datta Somnath Jadhav, is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 28th October, 2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad-Alibag thereby convicting accused No.1 Datta Somnath Jadhav 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 Datta Somnath Jadhav 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 Datta Somnath Jadhav 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 Datta Somnath Jadhav 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. 935 of 2014 filed by accused No.2 - Vanita Vasant Patil 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 Vanita Vasant Patil for the offence punishable under Sections 292, 509, 109 of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 14 and 17 of POCSO 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 Vanita Vasant Patil 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. 292 of 2015 is filed by the State for enhancement of the sentence imposed upon accused No.1 - Datta Somnath Jadhav and accused No.2 - Vanita Vasant Patil. (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter we would refer Datta Somnath Jadhav as “accused No.1” and Vanita Vasant Patil as “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] The informant / victim girl [name is concealed] resides at village Mothi Jui, Taluka Uran along with her parents, brother and sisters and was learning in 5th standard in Z.P. Primary School at village Mothi Jui. Accused No.1 was working as teacher, while accused No.2 was working as headmistress in the said School. Two months prior to the filing of the report, informant/victim girl was playing in the school premises along with other students. At that time, accused No.1 called informant and 2-3 girls and then took informant alone in 6th-A Class room by sending remaining girls to their class room. Then accu