R.C. CHAVAN, J.:- The State takes exception to the respondents' acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(g), 323, 394 and 109 read with Section 34 - of the Penal Code. 2. Facts, which led to the prosecution of the respondents are as under: 3. Prosecutrix was serving as a Teacher. She had gone to the Office of Assistant Charity Commissioner, Chandrapur, in connection with registration of a Mahila Mandal at Village Maikelpur. Accused No.1 Vinod was working in the said office. Thus she came to be acquainted with Vinod. On 7-3-1994, she was in the Office of Charity Commissioner till about 6 p.m. when her work in the office was over. She went to the Bus Stand for proceeding to her Village. Accused No.1 Vinod came there on scooter and offered her a lift till Ballarsha. The prosecutrix travelled on the pillion seat of accused No.1 's scooter. He took her about 100 to 150 feet away from the road and started misbehaving with her. 2 or 3 persons came there on bicycles assaulted accused No.1 Vinod, dragged the prosecutrix and raped her one after the other. Some more persons came in an auto-rickshaw and they too raped her. And so did accused No.1. Accused No.1 Vinod then took her on his scooter and dropped her at Anchaleshwar gate, from where the prosecutrix went to Ballarsha and from there to Gadchandur. 4. On the next day, the prosecutrix went to her parent's place at Antargaon and from there to Maikelpur and sent a chit about the incident to her parents. On 11-3-1994, she was unwell and so consumed some tablets. She then went to Rajura and from there to Chandrapur. She lodged a report with police on 11-3-1994 stating that she was gang-raped and that she had been robbed by the miscreants of cash, some documents and other articles, whereupon an offence was registered. 5. In the course of investigation, the police caused the prosecutrix to be medically examined, seized her clothing, performed panchanama of spot, arrested the accused persons, seized incriminating articles from them, caused a test identification parade to be conducted, sent the accused persons for recording their confessional statements, caused the accused persons to be examined by the doctor, sent the incriminating articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory and on completion of the investigation, charge-sheeted the accused. 6. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandrapur before whom the charge-sheet was filed, committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Chandrapur. 7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge to whom the case was assigned, charged accused No.1 of offence punishable under Section 366, accused No.1 to 8 of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g), accused No.9 to 10 of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(b) read with Section 109, accused No.4 of offence punishable under section 323, accused No.2 to 4 of offence punishable under Section 394 read with Section 109 of the Penal Code. All the accused pleaded not guilty and hence were put on 'trial. In its attempt to bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution examined in all 20 witnesses. Accused No.1 Vinod examined himself in defence. It was the case of accused No.1 that amorous advances of the prosecutrix led to the unfortunate situation in which other accused persons, who were totally unknown to her committed rape upon the victim. The defence of the other accused persons is that of denial. Considering the prosecution evidence in the light of defence of denial raised, the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his impugned judgment, came to acquit all the respondents. Aggrieved thereby, the State has appealed. 8. We have heard Adv. Shri. A.G. Mujumdar the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State Adv. Shri. S.S. Ghate for respondent No.1, Adv. Shri. A.P. Raghute for Respondents No.2 to 6 and Adv. Shri. Sirpurkar for respondents No.7 to 10. With the help of the counsel on both the sides, we have reappraised the' entire evidence in order to examine the correctness of the findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge. The prosecution had sought to establish guilt of the accused from the evidence of the prosecutrix herself coupled with the circumstantial corroboration in the form of seizures and recoveries of incriminating articles, and the results of analysis of incriminating articles received from the Forensic Science Laboratory. 9. Prosecutrix was examined as PW 8. She stated that she was serving as a Teacher in the Anganwadi School at Maikelpur and wanted to establish a Mahila Mandal in the Village. She had proceeded to the Office of Charity Commissioner at Chandrapur where accused No.1 was serving, in connection with registration of such Mahila Mandal. 9. Prosecutrix was examined as PW 8. She stated that she was serving as a Teacher in the Anganwadi School at Maikelpur and wanted to establish a Mahila Mandal in the Village. She had proceeded to the Office of Charity Commissioner at Chandrapur where accused No.1 was serving, in connection with registration of such Mahila Mandal. The prosecution case that accused No.1 Vinod attempted to take advantage of the victim, does not get support from the victim's evidence. Paras 4 and 5 of her examination-in-chief would show that accused No.1 had not made any attempt to pester the victim or see that she was repeatedly required to visit him. On the other hand, he had told her in the very first meeting that she need not come again. On the second occasion he had told her that necessary letter had already been sent to her and asked her to meet one Shri. Dhok, another employee in the office. 10. While it is the story of the prosecutrix that she left the office at about 6.30 p.m. 7-3-1994 and was at the Bus Stand when accused No.1 Vinod came on scooter and offered her a lift Vinod states in his deposition at Exhibit 175 that she had requested him to drop her at Ballarsha and that he had told her that he did not have a vehicle. He further states that he told her that he would drop her only if he could get some vehicle. Then he borrowed a vehicle from his friend. According to Vinod, the prosecutrix had told him that she will wait near the Bus Stand and then he picked her from the Bus Stand. The story given by the prosecutrix would rule out offence punishable under Section 366 of the Penal Code. 11. According to the prosecutrix while proceeding by scooter accused No.1 took a left turn from the main road and took her to lonely place. She states that when she asked him why he stopped the scooter, he told her that she had not given him a party for getting the registration certificate from the Charity Commissioner's Office and started pulling her saree. At that time, the other miscreants appeared and gang-raped her. Some more persons came and they too had a forcible sexual intercourse with her. While doing so they had removed her saree and underwear, but left the petticoat on her person. At that time, the other miscreants appeared and gang-raped her. Some more persons came and they too had a forcible sexual intercourse with her. While doing so they had removed her saree and underwear, but left the petticoat on her person. She stated that accused No.1 Vinod also had sexual intercourse with her at that time. Thereafter two of the accused gave her the underwear and asked accused No.1 to take the prosecutrix to the Bus Stand. 12. In cross-examination, it was suggested to the prosecutrix that it was because of her amorous advances that the accused No.1 had to stop the scooter and to warn her not to flirt. It was also suggested to the prosecutrix that because of her flirting the passions of the accused were aroused. She denied those suggestions. She admitted that one of the persons, who had gang-raped her assaulted accused No.1 with stick. She stated that accused No.1, had intercourse with her after all the outsider raped her. In para 64 on the deposition, she stated that one of the rapists told accused No.1 that since he had not had intercourse with prosecutrix, he should do so and then the rapists threw accused No.1 forcibly on her person. If that was so, it would be difficult to infer that accused No.1 Vinod had raped the victim. Thus, the account given by the prosecutrix herself complicity of accused No.1 in the incident of her being ravished, is ruled out. 13. In fact, had the Investigation Agency considered accused No.1 Vinod to be a witness to the incident rather than a participant in the rape, it would have been easier to bring the culprits to book. They could also have considered whether Vinod could be made approver to provide necessary corroboration to the word of prosecutrix. That had, however, not been done and therefore the case had to be judged on the basis of the evidence tendered. 14. The prosecutrix stated that the incident occurred on 7-3-1994. Accused No.1 had reached her to Anchaleshwar gate. From there, she went to Ballarsha by bus and halted at the house of her relatives, but did not narrate the incident to her grandmother. She states that she removed her petticoat and kept it in her bag and wore another petticoat. Presumably, on the next day, she went to her parents at Antargoan from Gadchandur. From there, she went to Ballarsha by bus and halted at the house of her relatives, but did not narrate the incident to her grandmother. She states that she removed her petticoat and kept it in her bag and wore another petticoat. Presumably, on the next day, she went to her parents at Antargoan from Gadchandur. There was bleeding from her angina. She had fever. On the next day morning she went to Maikelpur, but could not teach her students. When she opened the purse, she found many of the articles missing. She states that on 10-3-1994, she went to Rajura to the house of Shri. Chatap, the local MLA, whose wife sent her to Advocate Dewadkar, who has been examined as PW 9. Advocate Dewadkar advised her to give report. The prosecutrix states that Advocate Dewadkar had also asked her to bring her father. She then sent a chit to her father, which is at Exhibit 24, in which she had only sketchily described what had happened. She claimed to have consumed some tablets with the intention that she should die, but obviously the tablets were harmless, since nothing happened to her. On the next day, with her father she went to Advocate Wasekar at Chandrapur. Advocate Wasekar directed them to the Office of Superintendent of Police, from where they were directed to Police Station Ramnagar, where she gave her report, which is at Exhibit 80. This report is given four days after the incident by a prosecutrix, who is educated and presumably well versed with the official procedures, since she was interacting with the Office of Charity Commissioner. 15. On 11-3-1994, she was sent for medical examination and the OPD certificate at Exhibit 81, shows that there was a vaginal tear with slight bleeding, but the patient was not willing for stitching the tear. Dr. Durga Mulchandani, PW 16, had examined the victim on 11-3-1994 and found that there was a fresh bleeding from the vaginal tear. There were multiple healed abrasions on intra-scapular region and on waist. She had proved medical certificate at Exhibit 143 and also a reply to the query at Exhibit 135. It is surprising that the doctor did not give any age of injuries nor was she asked by anyone about the age of injuries. It is equally surprising that there was a fresh bleeding almost four days after the incident. She had proved medical certificate at Exhibit 143 and also a reply to the query at Exhibit 135. It is surprising that the doctor did not give any age of injuries nor was she asked by anyone about the age of injuries. It is equally surprising that there was a fresh bleeding almost four days after the incident. It seems that the prosecutrix had preserved the petticoat which she was wearing at the time of rape, though she had changed other clothes. She had handed over this petticoat to Dr. Durga Mulchandani. PW 16, who sealed it and handed it over to lady Police Constable Sunanda. 16. The accused were arrested at various points of time their clothes were seized and they were medically examined. The blood and semen samples were also caused to be taken. The investigating Officer caused the properly seized to be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory with PW 13 Jeevan. The report from the Laboratory is at Exhibit 133. From the report, it would appear that the victim's blood group is "A". While there were stains of blood of group "A" on the underwear of the prosecutrix, there were no stains of semen on the underwear, blouse or brassier. Her petticoat not only had blood stains of blood group of "A" but also stains of semen of blood group "A", "B" and "O". Blood group of accused No.5 Devman is "O" that of accused No.2 Lala is "A", that of accused No.3 Abdul Harun is "O" that of accused No.1 Vinod is "O" that of accused No.6 Ashok is "B" that the accused No.7 Suresh is "O", that of accused No.4 Raut is "B" and that of accused No.9 Ravindra is "A". Considering these various blood groups of the suspects the presence of semen stains of blood group of "A", "B" and "O" on the petticoat of the victim would make it difficult to conclude that any or all of them had decidedly ravished the victim. The only portion of report from the Laboratory at Exhibit 133, which could be of some help in connecting the suspects to the crime, is presence of blood of group "A" on the underwear of accused No.7 Suresh, whose blood is "O" and presence of blood stains of group "A” on the underwear of accused No.6 Ashok, when his blood group is "B". However these landings in themselves would not be sufficient to point to complicity of these two persons in the sexual assault on the victim. Their participation would only become probable. 17. The incident occurred at a lonely place in late evening when it was dark. According to the prosecutrix, the persons, who assaulted her, were not known to her. She saw some of them in the light of a match-stick lit by one accused, who lighted a cigarette. It seems that an auto-rickshaw had also come, but this was after the first part of gang-rape was over. The victim had herself stated that the light of the vehicle was flashed on her, but she could not see who were the persons concerned. In this context, identification of assailants by the victim had been evaluated and rejected by the learned Trial Judge. 18. The Investigation Agency had caused a test identification parade to be held by PW 11 Shri. Chamalwar, Naib Tahsildar. The record of the parade is at Exhibits 110 to 115. It is indeed unfortunate that the Officer did not take even logical requirements into consideration while holding the parade. In the parade, which was held in three parts, the same set of dummies was used. It would be obvious to the person asked to identify the suspect from the persons paraded that those who were already lined up on the earlier occasion would have to be excluded and only those who had joined in the successive rounds could be picked up. Therefore, the evidence of test identification parade is really of no use. Further, at the parade, the victim identified Shishupal Nanda Gawali and Vikram Mahadeo Adhao, who were dummies. If the victim could make a mistake in identifying a person, who had absolutely nothing to do with the crime, her identification of others would be equally suspect. 19. In view of this, though it is indeed unfortunate that the miscreants, who committed that heinous crime of gang-rape, could not be brought to book by the Investigating Agency and Prosecution the whole evidence tendered would leave us with no option but to affirm the conclusion drawn by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which is perfectly logical. The prosecutrix took four days to report the matter to police. The prosecutrix took four days to report the matter to police. The test identification parade was conducted by the Executive Magistrate in an amateurish fashion Forensic evidence does not conclusively point to the complicity of the respondents. Thus, there is absolutely no material to hold that the learned Trial Judge could have come to any different conclusion. 20. The appeal, therefore, fails are dismissed. Bail bonds if any, furnished by the respondents shall stand cancelled. Appeal dismissed