Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

II charge was under Section 384 IPC against accused No. 1 for extorting a gold chain from P.W.2 under threat on 15-12-2013 at NTR Circle, Vijayawada;
III charge was under Section 384 IPC against accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 for extorting a gold chain from P.W.2 by showing video containing her sexual act with accused No. 1 four or five days prior to 15-12-2013;

IV charge was under Section 67 B of the Information Technology Act, 2000, against accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 for showing video of sexual act of P.W.2 with accused No. 1 four or five days prior to 15-12-2013;

VIII charge was under Section 384 IPC against accused Nos. 1 to 3 for extorting gold rings from P.W.6 two months prior to 08-09-2014 at Kamayyathopu Centre Bus Stop, Kanuru; IX charge was under Section 12 read with Section 11 (i) of POCSO Act for committing sexual harassment on P.W.6 two months prior to 08-09-2014 at Kamayyathopu Centre Bus Stop, Kanuru, or in the alternative under Section 354 (2) read with Section 354 A (1) (iv) IPC;

X charge was under Section 14 (2) read with Section 13 (a) (b) of POCSO Act against accused No. 1 for using P.W.4 for pornographic purpose on 23-08-2014; and XI charge was under Section 14 (1) read with Section 13 of POCSO Act against accused Nos. 2 to 5 for using P.W.4 for pornographic purpose on 23-08-2014 and 16-09-2014.

18. For all the reasons recorded hereinabove, it is ordered as follows:

Criminal Appeal Nos. 157 and 147 of 2017 are hereby dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants-accused Nos. 3 and 5 by judgment dated 31-12-2016 and 04-01-2017 in S.C.No. 60 2014 on the file of the Court of learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under POCSO Act - cum - Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.
So far as Criminal Appeal No. 994 of 2017 filed by the appellant- accused No. 1 is concerned, the same is dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant-accused No. 1 for the offences under Section 384 IPC, Section 67-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 4 read with Section 3 (a) of POCSO Act and Section 12 read with Section 11 (i) of POCSO Act and so far as the offence under Section 376-D IPC is concerned, considering the age of the appellant-accused No. 1, while confirming the conviction recorded against him, the sentence is reduced from life imprisonment i.e. natural life to imprisonment for twenty years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months.