The credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony, corroboration from witnesses, and the failure of the accused to refute the charges were central to the court's decision.

Rajiv Sharma, J.

Since both these appeals are instituted against the same judgment dated 3.1.2015, the same were taken up together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. Cr. Appeal No. 25 of 2015 and Cr. Appeal No. 59 of 2015 have been instituted against the judgment dated 3.1.2015, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 73 of 2013, whereby appellants Vijay Kumar and O.P. Chopra were convicted and sentenced as under:

“Convict Vijay Kumar is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months, under section 10 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012;

Convict Vijay Kumar is also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month, under Section 354 IPC; Convict Vijay Kumar is also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days, under section 506 IPC.”

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

“Convict O.P. Chopra is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month, under section 21(2) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012;””

2. The case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that on 3.10.2013 at about 1:20 PM, victim (name withheld) along with her mother and Pradhan visited PP Bakloh and made report that on 1.10.2013 at about 11:30 AM, she along with her class mates was attending the lecture of English being delivered by her teacher Shruti. Her teacher Shruti started coughing and she brought water from the room of accused Vijay Kumar in a glass. Shruti told her to leave the glass in the room from where it was brought. The victim went to leave the glass in the room of accused Vijay Kumar. As soon as she kept the glass, accused Vijay Kumar got up and closed the door. He caught hold of her from arms and put her lips in his mouth and started sucking. He also started moving his hands on her cheeks and pressed her breasts. She got scared and got herself released from the clutches of accused with great difficulty and ran towards her class and disclosed the incident to her teacher Shruti, who advised her to disclose the incident to her parents. She went to her house and disclosed the incident to her mother. On the same day, at about 8:00 PM, accused Vijay Kumar along with accused O.P. Chopra came to her house and threatened her not to disclose this incident to anyone in presence of Davinder Basnet who was present in her house at that time. It is, in these circumstances, she could not lodge the report on 1st and 2nd October, 2013. FIR was registered and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. The birth certificate of the prosecutrix was obtained. She was minor. She was student of 10+1 class. Accused Vijay Kumar has confined her wrongly and outraged her modesty. Accused O.P. Chopra did not inform the parents about the occurrence. On completion of the investigation, challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as 13 witnesses. The accused were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They have denied the prosecution case and pleaded innocence. The learned trial Court convicted both the accused, as noticed hereinabove.

4. Mr. Satyen Vaidya, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vivek Sharma Advocate and Mr. Anoop Chitkara Advocate with Mr. Sat Prakash, Advocate for the respective accused have vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. On the other hand, Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Addl. Advocate General, for the State has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 3.1.20