Ashutosh Kumar, J. – All the three appeals (three appellants in all) have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. We have heard Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar, Mr. Pramod Kumar, and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, the learned Advocates in the three appeals respectively and Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, the learned APP for the State in all the appeals.

3. All the three appellants have been convicted under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant/Dharmendra Kumar Yadav @ Dharmendra Yadav in Cr. APP. (DB) No. 137 of 2021 has additionally been convicted under Section 354B of the IPC, vide judgment dated 07.12.2020 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Jamui in Sessions Trial No. 237 of 2018 arising out of Jhajha P.S. Case No. 117 of 2018. By order dated 09.12.2020, they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for twenty years, to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 376D of the IPC. Appellant/ Dharmendra Kumar Yadav @ Dharmendra Yadav has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer S.I. for six months for the offence under Section 354B of the IPC. The sentences against appellant/ Dharmendra Kumar Yadav @ Dharmendra Yadav have been ordered to run concurrently. The fine after its realization has been directed to be paid to the victim as part for compensation. Apart from the fine imposed on the appellants, the Trial Court, considering the need for consideration of the case of the victim under Section 357A of the Cr.P.C, has directed for payment of compensation to the victim by the DLSA, Jamui after calibrate. The appellants, however, have been acquitted by the charges under Section 67, 67A and 67B of the The Information Technology Act, 2000.

4. The victim (P.W.3) is said to have been gang-raped by the appellants and the act of rape was filmed by appellant/Karu Yadav, which was uploaded on social media.

5. The FIR has been lodged by the mother of the victim, who has been examined as P.W. 5. According to her, she had gone to visit Ram Navami fair on 25.03.2018, leaving her daughter (victim)/ (P.W. 3) and her son-in-law/Pankaj Kumar Yadav (P.W. 4) behind. When she came back from Jhajha after witnessing the fair, she found the door of her house open. She did not find her daughter and son-in-law. Since, it was 10:00 P.M. in the night, she tried to look for her daughter and son-in-law. After frantic search, when she reached near a school situated next to the Hanuman Temple, she found that her daughter (victim) was naked and her son-in-law injured. The appellants were raping her daughter (victim). One person was taking a photograph of the act. She had further alleged that after taking photographs, the pictures were uploaded on the social media. One person, viz., Karu Yadav had been keeping vigil outside the place where the occurrence was taking place. All of this she saw in the night. When the appellants saw her, they ran away after threatening her of serious consequences in case she went to the police station to lodge the case. For this fear, there was a delay in lodging the FIR.

6. On the basis of the aforenoted written report by P.W. 5 a case vide Jhajha P.S. Case No. 117 of 2018 dated 28.03.2018 was instituted against the appellants for the offences under Section 354B, 354C, 376(G) of the IPC and Section 67, 67A and 67B of the I.T. Act.

7. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellants, whereupon they were put on Trial.

8. The Trial Court, after having examined nine witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, including the two doctors and the investigator, convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid.

9. The two of the independent witnesses, viz., Upendra Yadav and Sikandar Kumar Yadav (P.Ws. 1 and 2) have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile.

10. The victim