Shailendra Singh, J. – Since both appeals have arisen out of the same judgment hence they are being decided together by a common judgment.

2. Heard learned counsels for the appellants and learned APPs appearing for the State.

3. In this judgment, the appellants namely Anita Devi, Amarjeet Kumar, Gaurav Kumar, Sumit Kumar and Himanshu Kumar will be referred to as A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 respectively.

4. The appellants have challenged the judgment impugned dated 30.07.2022 whereby they have been convicted by the court of learned Exclusive Special Court (POCSO Act)-cum-6th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Begusarai in POCSO Case No. 35/2020 arising out of Begusarai Town P.S. Case No. 536/2020 and also challenged the order of sentence dated 02.08.2022 whereby they have been sentenced for the offences for which they have been convicted.

5. The appellant, A1-Anita Devi, stood charged for the offences under Sections 346, 367, 370, 370A, 372, 373, 376 all read with Section 34 of IPC and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and also stood charged for the offences under sections 4, 6, 12 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short ‘POCSO Act’) and also charged for the offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (in short ‘ITP Act’), all read with Section 34 of IPC and also stood charged for the offences under Sections 75 and 79 of Juvenile Justice Act (in short ‘J.J. Act’) read with section 34 of IPC and under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act. The other appellants (A2 to A5) stood charged for the same offences like A1.

6. The trial court held the appellant no. 1 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of ITP Act and under Section 4 of POCSO Act. She was acquitted of other offences for which she was charged.

7. The trial court convicted the appellants A2 to A5 for the offence punishable under Section 4 of POCSO Act and they were acquitted of other charged offences.

8. The trial court sentenced the appellant A1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under section 3 of ITP Act read with Section 120B of IPC. She was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month for committing the offence under Section 4 of ITP Act read with section 120B of IPC. She was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month for committing the offence under Section 5 of ITP Act read with section 120B of IPC. She was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months for committing the offence under Section 6 of ITP Act read with section 120B of IPC and she was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months for committing the offence under Section 4(1) of POCSO Act read with Section 120B of IPC. All these sentences were directed to run concurrently.

9. The trial court sentenced the appellants A2, A3, A4 and A5 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months for committing the offence under Section 4(1) of POCSO Act read with Section 120B of IPC.

Prosecution’s story :

10. The prosecution’s story in brief is that the informant, the Circle Inspector, received the information from one Md. Jahid Hussain, a member of Justice Ventures India Trust that the appellant A1 indulged in prostitution by bri