Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.—Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 129 of 2017 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 176 of 2017, Mr. Mohammad Minnatullah, learned counsel for the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 295 of 2017 as also Ms. Shashi Bala Verma and Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutors for the State.

2. We had issued notice to the victim and the said notice was received by her mother. Even though she has entered appearance through Advocate but no one has appeared either yesterday or today in course of hearing of the appeal.

3. These three appeals are arising out of the judgment of conviction dated 13.12.2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 21.12.2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in Special (POCSO) Case No. 14 of 2014.

By the impugned judgment, the appellant, namely, Md. Kamal @ Tenny @ Tenia has been found guilty of the charges under Sections 363/34, 302/34, 201, 376A, 376D of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short ‘POCSO Act’) and the appellants, namely, Perwez Ahmad @ Mister, Guddu @ Tuttu and Lallu @ Sahjad @ Md. Sajjad have been found guilty of the charges under Sections 302/34, 201, 376A, 376D IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Learned trial court, however, acquitted two accused persons, namely, Scientist @ Mintu and Pappu who were also charged along with these appellants.

By the impugned order, the appellant, namely, Md. Kamal @ Tenny @ Tenia has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.5000/- u/s 363/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo further imprisonment for three months. He has also been ordered to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.20,000/- u/s 302/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo further imprisonment for six months. For the offence u/s 201 IPC, he has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo further imprisonment for three months. For the offence u/s 376A IPC, he has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with a fine of Rs.20,000/-. For the offence u/s 376D IPC, he has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo imprisonment of six months. For the offence u/s 4 of POCSO Act, he has been ordered to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo imprisonment for six months. The appellants, namely, Perwez Ahmad @ Mister, Lallu @ Sahjad and Guddu @ Tuttu have been ordered to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.20,000/- u/s 302/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, they have to undergo imprisonment for six months. For the offence u/s 201 IPC, they have been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, they have to further undergo imprisonment for three months. For the offence u/s 376A IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 20 years. For the offence under Section 376D IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, they have to further undergo imprisonment for six months. Further, for the offence u/s 4 of the POCSO Act, they have been ordered to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, they have to further undergo imprisonment for six months. All the sentences are to run concurrently.

Prosecution Case

4. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan (Exhibit ‘2/2’) of the mother of the victim who has been examined as PW-5 in the present case. In her fardbeyan, recorded