Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.—By the impugned judgment and order dated 12.09.2018/14.09.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I- cum- Special Judge, POCSO, Munger in C.R. Case No. 2861 of 2016, arising out of East Colony P.S. Case No. 48 of 2016, G.R. No. 1710 of 2016, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:—

2. Since all the three appeals preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 arise out of the same impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial court, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by the present common judgment and order.

3. The victim's name has been concealed in the present judgment and she has been referred to as the victim (PW-2) for maintaining privacy of her identity to protect her dignity.

4. Victim's father (PW-1) is the informant, on whose written report submitted to the Station House Officer, East Colony, Jamalpur, the concerned East Colony P.S. Case No. 46 of 2016 came to be registered on 01.10.2016, disclosing commission of an offence punishable under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code.

5. To begin with, it would be apt to recount the initial version of the prosecution's case as unfolded in the written report of the informant. The informant (PW 1) alleged in his written report that appellant Sudeep Vishwakarma (Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1306 of 2018) was engaged as a tutor to teach the informant's minor daughter, the victim (PW-2). The appellant was teaching her for last three years. Nearly two months prior to the date of lodging of the complaint, the appellant Sudeep Vishwakarma had attempted to molest her. Upon learning this conduct of Sudeep Vishwakarma, he was disengaged from the work of giving private tuition to the victim. Despite that Sudeep Vishwakarma used to follow the victim. On 28.09.2016 at about 6.40 a.m., by putting the victim under threat and by enticing her, he (Sudeep Vishwakarma) took the victim to someone's house at a place called Mungraura. Thereafter, certain pressure mounted by the police, Sudeep Vishwakarma, upon dropping the victim near one Path Bhawan School, escaped. In the said occurrence, the father of Sudeep Vishwakarma, namely, Parsan Vishwakarma (appellant of Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1218 of 2018) was also involved. To avoid ignonimity and public shame, the informant did not register any FIR on 28.09.2016. However, Sudeep Vishwakarma continued his misdeeds of molesting the victim even thereafter, which attempt could be neutralized because of the presence of the informant.

6. The victim's statement was subsequently recorded during the course of investigation and in the light of the nature of accusation made by her, a request was made before the concerned Magistrate to add Sections 376, 354-D read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act for short). In view of addition of these provisions, the case was transferred to the learned Special Judge POCSO. Upon completion of investigation the police submitted charge-sheet on 30.10.2017 against the appellant Sudeep Vishwakarma and his father Parsan Vishwakarma for the offences punishable under Sections 366-A, 376, 354-D read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, keeping the investig