Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.—These appeals have been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. By the impugned judgment and order dated 22.01.2019/28.01.2019 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, POCSO Act, Saharsa in POCSO Case NO. 02/2016, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under :—

All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

3. We have heard, Mr. Amarnath Jha, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 195 of 2019 and Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, learned Advocate in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 255 of 2019. Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has represented the state in both these appeals.

4. A written report of the father of the victim is the basis for registration of the First Information Report on 31.12.2015. The identities of the victim (PW-3) and the informant (PW-8) have been concealed and they are being referred to as PW-3 and PW-8 in the present judgment. The mother of PW-3 has been examined as PW-4. She is also being referred to as PW-4 in the present judgment, for the same purpose of concealing the identity of the victim.

5. The informant (PW-8) in his written report alleged that on 30.12.2015 at 6.00 am, his daughter (PW-3) had gone outside the house to attend nature’s call. In the meanwhile, he saw that Rajeev Sah and Dilip Sada forcibly making his minor daughter sit in the motorcycle which they were riding. Hearing the screams of PW-3, the informant (PW-8) rushed to the house of Rajeev Sah. At the house of Rajeev Sah, he complained to her father, mother, uncle and grandfather of Rajeev Sah regarding his daughter having been kidnapped by Rajeev Sah. He requested them to handover his daughter to him. He further disclosed in his written report that thereafter the father of said Rajeev Sah (Pandav Sah), mother (Leela Devi), Uncle (Nand lal Sah) and Grand father (Ram Swarath Sah) started abusing the informant and others and accosted them to do whatever they could do. In background of the abovementioned allegation, with the apprehension that the informant’s daughter might be forcibly made to marry one of the kidnappers or she might be killed, the informant filed his written report.

6. It is noteworthy that the occurrence of kidnapping as disclosed in the First Information Report is of 30.12.2015 at 6.00 in the morning. From the First Information Report it transpires that the information to the police was given at 4.30 pm on 31.12.2015. Based on the said written report, Bakhtiyarpur Police Station case no. 494 of 2015 thus came to be registered on 31.12.2015 disclosing commission of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A, 323, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 6 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act ( the POCSO Act for short).

7. We consider it appropriate to mention at this juncture itself, as is evident form the records more particularly the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW-9) that on the very next day of registration of First Information Report, these appellants were arrested by him. Further, PW-3 was found on 03.01.2016. Her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Proc