JUDGMENT (SHINDE, J.):- 1. Both these appeals challenge the judgment and orderdated 3.12.2005 passed by IIIrd Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No. 202 of2004, thereby convicting the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 376(g) and 363, 366,451, 323 and 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C.. Criminal appeal No. 219 of 2006 is by the State of Maharashtra for enhancement of sentence and criminal appeal No. 44 of 2007 is filed by accused challenging the conviction and sentence as imposed by the Sessions Court, Ahmednagar. 2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is as under:-. The prosecutrix is a minor girl residing with herfather P.W.6 Jalindar Narayan Shirsath, mother Sumanbai,two sisters and two brothers. On 22.8.2004, afterdinner, the kids including the prosecutrix went to sleep.P.W.6 Jalindar and his wife were listening Kirtan(religious discourse) by sitting in the courtyard oftheir house. The Kirtan was going on in the village.The door of the house was closed from inside, by thekids. It is the case of the prosecution that theprosecutrix, who happens to be a minor girl, heard thatsomebody was pushing the door. There was attempt fromoutside, to open the door forcibly. The prosecutrix didnot open the door. The accused persons forcibly dashedand opened the door. Two persons entered the house. Onewas wearing half white shirt and white pant and anotherpersons was wearing khaki pant and black shirt. Bothwere having black complexion. It is the case of theprosecution that the prosecutrix saw both the persons inthe light of bulb. One of the accused broke the bulb.The person wearing white shirt and pant caught hold thehands of the prosecutrix and another person caught herlegs and kidnapped her by closing her mouth. Theyslapped her and made her keep quiet. They carried hertowards the hilly area. The accused persons tore hermidi skirt and blouse. Further they removed her nicker.They pulled her down to earth. Thereafter the personwearing white dress raped her first. The person wearingblack shirt raped her thereafter. It is the case of theprosecutrix that since the accused persons were seen bythe prosecutrix in the light of bulb, she is able toidentify them.. It is further case of the prosecution that beforeopening door, these two persons assaulted P.W.6 Jalindarwhen he was sitting with his wife in the courtyard forlisting Kirtan. His wife ran towards the village. Thoserapists assaulted P.W.6 Jalindar by iron pipe and anotherpelted bricks towards him. It is further case of the prosecution that beforeopening door, these two persons assaulted P.W.6 Jalindarwhen he was sitting with his wife in the courtyard forlisting Kirtan. His wife ran towards the village. Thoserapists assaulted P.W.6 Jalindar by iron pipe and anotherpelted bricks towards him. He also saw both the rapistsin the light of bulb. It is further case of the prosecution that whateverhappened inside the room was informed by the childrenthat the thieves kidnapped the prosecutrix and they havetaken her away. Therefore, P.W.6 Jalindar and othervillagers started searching prosecutrix with the help oftorch and in the light of head lamp of motorcycle. Theprosecutrix was found in naked condition in hilly areahaving been raped by both the accused persons. Theybrought the prosecutrix to the house of P.W.6 Jalindar.The prosecutrix was taken to the police station, wherecomplaint Exh. 42 was lodged. 3. The prosecutrix was referred for medical examination.P.W.8 Dr. Manisha Narayan Hange carried out her medicalexamination. Similarly, to determine the age of theprosecutrix she was also referred to P.W.12 Dr. AmbadasHari Sase, who was then working as Radiologist, whoopined that the age of prosecutrix was in between 14 to16 years. P.W.11 Pandharinath B. Kedare carried out theinvestigation in the matter.. Accused No.1 Manik Mohan Gaikwad was arrested soonafter the incident. His identification parade was heldwith the permission of the Court on 24.9.2004 at thehands of P.W.9 Rajendra Wagh. P.W.5 prosecutrix andP.W.6 Jalindar in independent identification paradesidentified him. He was sent for medical examination.P.W.10 Dr. Suchitra Khedkar examined him.. During the course of investigation accused No.2Bhausaheb Mohan Mali was arrested. He was also promptlysent for medical examination and his medical examinationwas also done by P.W.8 Dr. Manisha on 22.3.2005. Afterarrest of accused No.2 with the permission of the court,test identification parade was held by P.W.9 RajendraWagh on 17.4.2005. In that parade P.W.5 prosecutrix andP.W.6 Jalindar in separate identification paradesidentified accused No.2 Bhausaheb.. During investigation, spot panchanama was drawn in thepresence of P.W.1 Dagadu Ghuge and another panch.Similarly, clothes of the accused persons were seizedunder panchanama at Exh.31 in presence of P.W.2 BhausahebShirsath and other panchas. The clothes of accused No.2Bhausaheb were seized from hut of his father in presenceof P.W.3 Sambhaji Warkad.. The samples of blood stains and clothes were sent forChemical Analyser’s report with P.W.14 Jabbar Rahim Khan.C.A. reports are at Exh.82 and 83. The clothes of accused No.2Bhausaheb were seized from hut of his father in presenceof P.W.3 Sambhaji Warkad.. The samples of blood stains and clothes were sent forChemical Analyser’s report with P.W.14 Jabbar Rahim Khan.C.A. reports are at Exh.82 and 83. For the purpose ofage determination, school leaving certificate of theprosecutrix was also collected and for that purposeevidence of P.W.16 Arun Bhagwat was taken intoconsideration.. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filedbefore the court of J.M.F.C. Pathardi. Since theoffence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions,learned J.M.F.C. committed the case under Section 209 ofCr.P.C. to the Court of Sessions at Ahmednagar. TheSessions Judge, Ahmednagar framed the charges againstboth the accused under Sections 376(g) and 363, 366, 451,323, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. Both the accused pleaded notguilty, therefore, they were called upon to face thetrial. 4. In order to prove the case, the prosecution hasexamined in all 15 witnesses. The first importantwitness is P.W.5 prosecutrix herself. Her evidence is atExh.41. Her name was not disclosed in the judgment inthe light of observations made by the Supreme Court inthe case of State of Punjab Vs. Ramdeo Singh, reportedin A.I.R. 2004 SC 1290. P.W.6, father of the prosecutrix Jalindar Narayan Shirsath, who is also injured in the said episode at the hands of accused persons. P.W.7 Ajinath Shirsath is examined vide Exh.44,who claims to be a villager and had participated in the search operation for the prosecutrix.. Another bunch of witnesses is from medical professioni.e. P.W.8 Dr. Manisha Hange at Exh.47, P.W.10 Dr. Suchitra Bappasaheb Khedkar at Exh.67 and P.W.12 Dr.Ambadas Hari Sase is at Exh.88.. The next bunch of witnesses are panch witness P.W.1Dagadu at Exh.28, P.W.21 Bhausaheb Shankar at Exh.20 andP.W.3 Sambhaji Maruti at Exh.32. P.W.4 Jagdish MohanGade at Exh.37 is Revenue Circle Inspector, who drew mapof the spot at Exh.39. P.W.9 Rajendra Eknath Wagh atExh.57 is Executive Magistrate, who held testidentification parade of accused persons. P.W. 16 ArunRangnath Bhagwat happens to be the Head Master of theschool. His evidence is recorded at Exh.97. P.W.13Sadashiv Gangadhar Puri at Exh.91, who happens to beP.S.O. who has recorded the complaint of prosecutrix.P.W.14 Jabbar Rahimkhan Exh.92 is the carrier of Muddemalto the Chemical Analyser. P.W.11 Pandharinath BapuraoKedare Exh.70 and P.W.15 Vikas Govindrao Tidake Exh.93are examined as investigating Officers in the presentcase. 5. His evidence is recorded at Exh.97. P.W.13Sadashiv Gangadhar Puri at Exh.91, who happens to beP.S.O. who has recorded the complaint of prosecutrix.P.W.14 Jabbar Rahimkhan Exh.92 is the carrier of Muddemalto the Chemical Analyser. P.W.11 Pandharinath BapuraoKedare Exh.70 and P.W.15 Vikas Govindrao Tidake Exh.93are examined as investigating Officers in the presentcase. 5. The statements of the accused are recorded underSection 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused No.1 Manik Gaikwad in hisstatement has stated that he demanded arrears ofRs.7500/- to one Bajirao Dada Shete. On refusal at theinstance of said Bajirao Dada Shete, he is implicated inthe false case.. The accused represented their case through advocate.On the basis of the pleadings and evidence on recordbrought by the parties, the learned Sessions Judgeformulated points for his determination. The learnedSessions Judge while dealing with the first point came tothe conclusion that the prosecution proved that both theaccused in furtherance of their common intention havecommitted gang rape on prosecutrix. It is further heldby the trial court that in furtherance of their commonintention both the accused kidnapped the minor girl andthereby committed offence under Section 363 r.w. 34 ofI.P.C. It is further held that the accused persons, infurtherance of their common intention, have not onlykidnapped the minor girl but she is also subjected toforceful sexual intercourse and thereby both the accusedhave further committed offence punishable under Section366 r.w. 34 of I.P.C..C. It was further held that boththe accused persons in furtherance of their commonintention committed house tress pass by entering in thehouse of prosecutrix and thereby committed offence underSection 451 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. It was further held thatin furtherance of their common intention both the accusedby means of iron pipe and brick assaulted Jalindar,father of prosecutrix, and therefore, they are also heldguilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 r.w.34 of I.P.C.. The Sessions Court finally convicted both the accusedunder Section 235 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishableunder Sections 376 (g) of I.P.C. and they are sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-i/d of payment of fine, they shall suffer further R.I.for one year each. Both accused are further convictedfor the offence punishable under Section 366 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and they are sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years each and to pay fine of Rs.100/- each i/d theyshall suffer R.I. for 6 months each. Both accused are further convictedfor the offence punishable under Section 366 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and they are sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years each and to pay fine of Rs.100/- each i/d theyshall suffer R.I. for 6 months each. Both the accusedare further convicted for the offence punishable undersection 451 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and they are sentenced tosuffer R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.100/-each i/d they shall suffer further R.I. for six monthseach. Accused are further convicted u/section 323 r.w.34 of I.P.C. and they are sentenced to suffer R.I. forsix months. Both the accused are further convicted forthe offence punishable under Section 506 r.w. 34 ofI.P.C. and they are sentenced to suffer R.I. for sixmonths each. All the substantive sentences are to runconcurrently. Accused No.1 Manik Mohan is entitled forset off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. in respect ofsubstantive sentence for undergone period of jail i.e.from 23.8.2004 to 3.12.2005. It was further directedthat accused No.2 Bhausaheb Mali is also entitled for setoff under section 428 of Cr.P.C. in respect ofsubstantive sentence for undergone period in jail i.e.from 22.3.2005 to 3.12.2005. If the amount of fine isrecovered from the accused, the amount of Rs.1000/- isordered to be paid to P.W.5 prosecutrix under Section 357of Cr.P.C. towards compensation after appeal period isover. 6. Being aggrieved by inadequacy of sentence awardedvide impugned judgment and order passed by the SessionsCourt, the State Government preferred Criminal Appeal No.219 of 2006 for enhancement of the sentence and theoriginal accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2007for setting aside the finding of guilty and convictingthem. 7. Learned A.P.P. Shri. N.N. Jadhav, appearing forthe State has submitted that the accused persons havecommitted heinous crime. They are charged under Section376(g) of I.P.C. They have committed rape on theprosecutrix, who is minor. The manner in which theentire incident took place is very serious. It is notonly that the accused persons committed gang rape butthey went to the house of the prosecutrix during thenight time. They opened the door forcibly. Theykidnapped the prosecutrix, who is minor girl. They tookher away to nearby hilly area and committed rape on her.The prosecutrix had occasion to clearly observe and seethe accused persons in the light of bulb, which wassubsequently broken by the accused persons. They opened the door forcibly. Theykidnapped the prosecutrix, who is minor girl. They tookher away to nearby hilly area and committed rape on her.The prosecutrix had occasion to clearly observe and seethe accused persons in the light of bulb, which wassubsequently broken by the accused persons. In the saidincident initially, the accused persons assaulted thefather of the prosecutrix, thereafter forcibly opened thedoor, assaulted the prosecutrix, kidnapped her and tocause disappearance of the evidence they broke the bulb.The panchnama shows that inside house electric holder andbulb were found in broken condition. They took theprosecutrix away from the house and committed gang rape.All these events are of very serious nature andtherefore, the sentence awarded by the Sessions Court beenhanced and ultimately it was prayed that the maximumsentence should be awarded to the accused persons. Inthe said appeal, various grounds are taken by theappellant. In Ground No.3 it is specifically stated thatthe prosecutrix was minor girl under the age of 16 years.She was forcibly taken without bothering for the protestof her father and this itself shows that the accusedpersons were not bothered or scared about the age of theprosecutrix. It is further stated that Hon’ble SupremeCourt in the case of Dhananjay Vs. State of West Bengal (1994) 2 SCC 220 observed that the imposition ofappropriate punishment is the manner in which the courtsrespond to the Society’s cry for justice against thecriminals. It is further argued by the learned A.P.P.that in the case of Rajiv Vs. State of Rajasthan (1996)2 SCC 175 , it is observed that the court will be failingin its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded fora crime, which has been committed not only against theindividual victims but also against the society to whichthe criminal and victims belong. Finally, it was arguedthat taking entire evidence into account and the heinouscrime committed by the accused persons, the maximumsentence should be awarded to the accused persons. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the accused hassubmitted that the concocted and false case is filedagainst the accused persons. It is further submittedthat the presence of P.W.6 in the courtyard of the houseas stated by the prosecution is not possible. Even ifthe prosecution story is believed, there was no light tosee the accused persons. It is further submitted thatthe story of prosecution is twofold. It is furthersubmitted that if version of prosecutrix is compared withthe version of Jalindar, father of prosecutrix, there isvariance. Even ifthe prosecution story is believed, there was no light tosee the accused persons. It is further submitted thatthe story of prosecution is twofold. It is furthersubmitted that if version of prosecutrix is compared withthe version of Jalindar, father of prosecutrix, there isvariance. The version of Jalindar is not corroborated byspot panchanama. It is further submitted that testidentification parade carried out by P.W.9 was not inaccordance with the guidelines laid down in CriminalManual.. It was further submitted that there are materialcontradictions and omissions in the deposition especiallyof P.W.7 and 8 in respect of time of the allegedincident. It was further submitted that as per medicalevidence the age of the injuries sustained by theprosecutrix, her father and appellant No.1 are differentand therefore, no inference can be drawn in respect ofassault on Jalindar and the presence of the accused atthe scene of offence. It was further submitted that inview of the specific admission of P.W.9 and 11 thatTahsil Office, police station and prison are adjacent andin the same premises, the learned trial court has wronglyheld that the identity of the appellant is proved beyondreasonable doubt without any further corroboration. Itwas further argued that no proper identification paradeis held by P.W.9 and Tahsildar. It was submitted thatthe trial court failed to consider that there arematerial contradictions and omissions in the depositionof P.W.11, Investigation Officer and P.W.13, as theInvestigating Officer says that the complainant hadnarrated story to him and on his dictation it was reducedin writing by P.W.14. Whereas P.W.13 says thatcomplainant had directly narrated the story to him.Accordingly, he had reduced it in writing. It is furthersubmitted that there are material contradictions andomissions in respect of the injuries sustained by P.W.6,and the story of search of accused in the light of motorcycle, is not corroborated by any of other witnesses. Itwas further submitted that all circumstances against theaccused are not put to them in their statements underSection 313 of Cr.P.C. It is submitted that mereproduction of document from school is not sufficient toprove the age of victim. It was submitted that the entire prosecution story is concocted, there is no concrete evidence against the accused persons. The identification parade as carried out is in violation of the provisions laid down in criminal manual and there fore, the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court is liable to be quashed and set aside. 9. It was submitted that the entire prosecution story is concocted, there is no concrete evidence against the accused persons. The identification parade as carried out is in violation of the provisions laid down in criminal manual and there fore, the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court is liable to be quashed and set aside. 9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length. We have perused the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge. We would like to deal with the first point which is about the age of the prosecutrix at the time of alleged offence. According to the learned counsel appearing for the accused the prosecution has failed to prove that the prosecutrix was minor at the relevant time.. To ascertain the age of prosecutrix, the prosecutrix was examined by P.W.12 Ambadas Hari Sase and after ossification test he opined that the age of the prosecutrix was in between 6 to 14 years. Apart from this, the prosecution did produce the school record of the prosecutrix vide Exh.100. Copy of birth extract at Exh.98. Copy of school register which is duly proved byproducing original register at the hands of P.W.16 ArunRangnath Bhagwat, Head Master of the school. The date ofbirth of prosecutrix is dated 1.11.1992 and the date ofoffence is 22.8.2004. So on 22.8.2004 the age of theprosecutrix was of 11 years and nine months and odd days.Learned counsel appearing for the accused placed relianceon the judgment of this Court in the case of Amit @ BapuNanasaheb Handawalkar Vs. State of Maharashtra reportedin 2006 All M.R. (Cri.) 3057 and contended that entryregarding age of the person in school register is not ofmuch evidentiary value to prove the age of the person inabsence of material on which the age was recorded. We donot agree with the submission of the learned counsel forthe accused/appellants. The prosecution has brought onrecord the evidence of P.W.12 and P.W.16 and therefore,the prosecution has convincingly proved that at the timeof incident the prosecutrix was minor. The evidenceproduced by the prosecution is admissible. There isnothing in the cross examination of the witnesses todisbelieve the evidence about the age of the prosecutrix. 10. The prosecutrix is examined as P.W.5 by theprosecution. Her evidence is at Exh.41. In herexamination in chief, she deposed that at the time ofincident she was studying in 7th standard. The evidenceproduced by the prosecution is admissible. There isnothing in the cross examination of the witnesses todisbelieve the evidence about the age of the prosecutrix. 10. The prosecutrix is examined as P.W.5 by theprosecution. Her evidence is at Exh.41. In herexamination in chief, she deposed that at the time ofincident she was studying in 7th standard. Incident tookplace on 22.8.2004 i.e. Sunday which was holiday for theschool. At about 8.30 p.m. she took dinner alongwithother sisters and brothers. She went to sleep, herparents were listening Kirtan. The parents were sittingoutside the house. She further states that door of thehouse was closed from inside. She further deposed thatsomebody knocked the door from outside. She woke up andheard that somebody was asking to open the door.However, she did not open the door. The door was openedby giving dash to the door. Two persons entered in thehouse. She specifically states that she saw them in thelight of bulb. She further states that one of theaccused broke the bulb. One person was wearing whitehalf shirt and white pant and another person was wearingKhaki pant and black shirt. She repeated in herdeposition that she saw both of them in the light ofelectric bulb. She further deposed that the personwearing white pant caught her hands and person wearingblack shirt caught her legs and lifted her. They broughther out of house. They pulled her towards small hill,She tried to cry for help. Accused persons slapped her.She further deposed that accused persons tore her clothesi.e. midi skirt and blouse. They also removed hernicker. They pulled her down to earth. The personwearing white dress first raped her. Thereafter theperson wearing black shirt raped her. She furtherdeposed that both the accused committed rape on hertwice. She tried to run away from the clutches of the accused. She scratched by her nails on the person of both the rapists. She further deposed that she sustainedinjuries on her face and chest. She further states thather bangles were broken in the incident.She further deposed that her father and villagers cametowards them. Both the rapists ran away after seeing thepeople. She narrated the incident to her parents. Thenpolice jeep came. Then they went to the police stationand complaint was immediately lodged in the policestation. Signature was put on the complaint which is atExh.42. She further states that she was referred formedical examination at Pathardi Rural Hospital. Both the rapists ran away after seeing thepeople. She narrated the incident to her parents. Thenpolice jeep came. Then they went to the police stationand complaint was immediately lodged in the policestation. Signature was put on the complaint which is atExh.42. She further states that she was referred formedical examination at Pathardi Rural Hospital. Shefurther deposed that in first identification parade, sheidentified one of the accused. In another identification parade she identified another accused. She deposed that both the accused forcibly took her to hill and while resisting the accused, she sustained nail injuries on her face. She was compelled to fell down on the ground. Accused persons tore her clothes, removed her nicker and committed rape. She further deposed that she is telling true version.. In her cross examination, she deposed that she wasraped by the accused persons twice. She cannot tell thatwhy the police did not mention the said fact in thecomplaint. She denied the suggestion that her father waswith her when she went to identification parade. Shedenied all the suggestions put by the defence counsel.Her evidence in examination in chief is not shattered inany manner in the cross examination. In the crossexamination suggestion was given to her that she isgiving false evidence that accused broke the bulb.However, she reiterated that she saw the accused personsin the light of bulb and thereafter accused persons brokethe bulb. About the description of the accused persons,her testimony remained intact even after crossexamination. Nothing could be brought out by the defencecounsel in the cross examination to make the testimony ofP.W.5 prosecutrix unworthy. F.I.R. was lodged by theprosecutrix immediately. 11. Deposition of P.W.6 Jalindar Shirsath, father of theprosecutrix before the court is at Exh.43. He stated inhis deposition that he himself, wife Sumanbai, daughtersDeepali, Laxmi, Radha and Sons Sarangdhar and Haribhauwere residing in the field house together atShirsathwadi. On 22.8.2004 he went for labour workthroughout the day and came back at evening. They tooktheir dinner in the house. Then daughter Deepali andother kids went for sleeping inside the house. Healongwith his wife were sitting in Padavi, outside thehouse, for listening Kirtan. He deposed that dog barked,therefore, he stood up. Some sound came from westernside. One person wearing black checks shirt having pipein his hand, came to him. He saw them in the light ofbulb of his house, which was outside the house, locallycalled as Padavi. Healongwith his wife were sitting in Padavi, outside thehouse, for listening Kirtan. He deposed that dog barked,therefore, he stood up. Some sound came from westernside. One person wearing black checks shirt having pipein his hand, came to him. He saw them in the light ofbulb of his house, which was outside the house, locallycalled as Padavi. The thief who was having check shirtabused him in the words "Bhainchod Bajula Ho" andassaulted him with pipe on his left hand. Another thiefpelted bricks towards him on his back. The person havingchecks shirt broke the bulb. Though he cried for help,nobody came from village as Kirtan was going on andnobody could listen his cry. His wife went to village tocall villagers for help. His sons Haribhau and Sarangdhar came running towards him. They stated himthat their sister, daughter of P.W.6 is taken away bythieves.. Villagers came to his house alongwith his wife. Healongwith other villagers started searching daughter inthe light of motor cycle. He saw his daughter near hillyarea. He further deposed that daughter was in nakedcondition. Both the thieves ran away by seeing them.Daughter narrated the incident to him. He furtherdeposed that on the spot, clothes of the daughter, hairbangle pieces, blood stains were found. Then daughterwas brought to house. Then police came. They went topolice station and complaint was lodged. Daughter wastaken to hospital at Pathardi. Spot was shown to thepolice on the second day. The police seized clothes,hair bangle pieces from the spot. He further deposedthat he can identify the accused persons. He identifiedthe accused persons before the Court. He further deposedthat he correctly identified the accused persons inidentification parades.. In his cross examination nothing substantial could bebrought out by the defence counsel to disbelieve thetestimony of P.W.6 father and he asserted even in thecross examination that accused did commit rape on hisdaughter and those are the same persons to whom he hasidentified. 12. P.W.7 Ajinath Dnyaneshwar Shirsath, who deposed thathe resides in the nearby vicinity of the house ofJalindar P.W.6. He further deposed that he went tolisten the Kirtan. Sumanbai, wife of P.W.6 came runningin the Kirtan crying for help. She told that thievesassaulted them. He further deposed that he alongwithother came to Jalindar’s house. Jalindar narrated theincident. Then they started to search Deepali. Deepaliwas found in the forest land on hill at a distance of 700to 800 meters. She was found in naked condition. Henarrated other details also. Sumanbai, wife of P.W.6 came runningin the Kirtan crying for help. She told that thievesassaulted them. He further deposed that he alongwithother came to Jalindar’s house. Jalindar narrated theincident. Then they started to search Deepali. Deepaliwas found in the forest land on hill at a distance of 700to 800 meters. She was found in naked condition. Henarrated other details also. In his cross examination,nothing substantial could be brought on record by thedefence to disbelieve his version. 13. P.W.8 is Medical Officer. Her deposition is atExh.47. In her examination in chief, she deposed that on23.8.2004 at midnight she received a letter of P.S.I.Tidake, who personally brought the said letter andprosecutrix Deepali Jalindar Shirsath. She admittedendorsement on the letter, which was shown to her duringchief examination. She further deposed that the saidletter is at Exh.48. She further states that she alsoreceived another letter for examination of JalindarShirsath. She admitted the contents of the letter aswell as endorsement made by her, which is at Exh.49.. She further deposed that as per the police statement, the prosecutrix was under age, therefore, her father’ sconsent was taken for medical examination. She further stated that probable age of the prosecution was around 13years. She deposed that prosecutrix gave the history that there was sexual assault on her by two persons on22.8.2004 at around 10.30 p.m. In Medical examination she observed as follows:- " Her height was 147 cms. Weight was 36 Kgs. Shewas averagely built and averagely nourished. Her allteeth were present. Her axillary and pubic hairswere sparse. Breast development was present.Genitals were well developed. She was well oriented,conscious and afebrile. her blood pressure was120/70 mm of hg. pulse 86 per minute. R/R 18 perminute. C.N.S. examination conscious, noneurological deficit. Pupils bilaterally equalreacting to light R.S. examination; clear, airentry equal on both sides. C.V.S. Examination S-1,S-2 normal, her abdomen, L-O, S-O K-O. There istenderness over supra pubic region. Her gait wasbroad based, painful. Blood was trickling down up tofeet, while standing. There is no evidence ofvenereal disease noted. Regarding her clothes; shewas found naked at the place of incident as told byher and other clothes were given to her and thenbrought to R.H.Pathardi. Regarding history of bath;she had taken bath in the morning on 22nd August,2004. Regarding the history of urine and motionpassed after this incident. No urine or motionpassed.. P.W.8 Dr. Manisha Hange noted the followinginjuries on the person of prosecutrix:- 1. Regarding history of bath;she had taken bath in the morning on 22nd August,2004. Regarding the history of urine and motionpassed after this incident. No urine or motionpassed.. P.W.8 Dr. Manisha Hange noted the followinginjuries on the person of prosecutrix:- 1. On face: Abrasion- multiple linear curved redabrasion on left cheek infra-orbital area, leftside nose measuring 1/2 cm x 1/4 cms.suggestive of nail marks etc. 2. Swelling: Over forehead in centre, upper lip incentre 1x1 cms. 3. Contusion: Red in colour, right infra-orbitalarea 1.5 x 1/2 cms. Another contusion onlateral angle of right eye, 1x1 cms.On neck examination she found abrasion on anteriorsurface of neck, which is linear, curved and redin colour of 6 cms x 1/4 cms. On breast examination: Right breast, multiple linear abrasions which werered, extending from areola to sternal area 5 innumber, 1/2 cm, apart from each other, 2abrasions on lateral side. On left breast therewere multiple linear abrasions, red in colourextending from areola to sternal area, 7 in Nos. Abrasions present on (1) Right shoulder and RightScapular area 5 cms x 2 cms, (2) right forearmmedially which was 3x2 cms. (3) left forearm withleft elbow joint post medially, which was 2.5 x 1.5cms. (4) multiple abrasions over back (5) there wasabrasion over right knee. 5 in number each measuring1/2 x 1/2 cms./ (6) Abrasions on left knee, 6 in number 1.2 x 1/4 cms. There was abrasion on left high middle 1/3rd area laterally 3 cms x 1/2 cm. There was abrasions on right buttock, lower outerquadrant, linear, red 4 in numbers, 4 cms x 1/4 cms each. On Genital examination she found following things:- Monspulis structure normal. External urethralmeatus; normal, hymen is teared off. There waspresence of second degree perennial tear noted onleft medio later all including posterior vaginal wallupto 3 cms. (b) perennial muscle (v) perennial skinupto 3 cms. Fresh bleeding present through wound. Cervix: No injury over curvi P/V examination: doneunder sedation. There was tenderness over supra pubic area present:- Sample sent for chemical analysis are:- 1. blood in plan bulb and citrate bulb. 2. vaginal swab. 3. vulvar swab 4. Pubic hair 5. Nail clippings.. She further deposed that patient was admittedovernight at residential Hospital Pathardi. Fresh bleeding present through wound. Cervix: No injury over curvi P/V examination: doneunder sedation. There was tenderness over supra pubic area present:- Sample sent for chemical analysis are:- 1. blood in plan bulb and citrate bulb. 2. vaginal swab. 3. vulvar swab 4. Pubic hair 5. Nail clippings.. She further deposed that patient was admittedovernight at residential Hospital Pathardi. Theprosecutrix perennial tear was sutured under sedation.She was given adequate I.V. fluids and necessaryantibiotic course and she had been referred to CivilHospital, Ahmednagar on 23.8.2004 for age determination.She further deposed all injuries mentioned in the medicalcertificate are caused within six hours. She furtherdeposed that the contents of medical certificate given byher are true and correct. The said certificate bears hersignature which is at Exh.50. She further deposed thataccording to her examination and injuries noted by theprosecutrix on the person of prosecutrix, there isevidence of recent forceful sexual intercourse. Shefurther deposed that police only asked to examine thepatient and did not ask the opinion and therefore,through oversight she did not mention her specificopinion which she has given in chief. She furtherdeposed that the prosecutrix was referred to CivilHospital, Ahmednagar to civil surgeon and Radiologist fordetermination of age. The Civil surgeon and radiologisttook X-rays 3 in number and gave opinion that the age ofprosecutrix Deepali was between 6 to 14 years. The saidX ray plates and opinion of radiologist was placed onrecord during her examination in chief.. She further deposed that on the same day she examinedJalindar P.W.6 at about 1.00 a.m. She noted thefollowing injuries on his person. 1. Contusion over left forearm, posterior laterallyupper 1/2, 6 cms x 4 cms. 2. Right arm upper 1/3rd laterally, contusion withabrasion,2 cms x 2 cms. 3. Abrasion on right scapular area linear obliqueand red in colour 7 cms x 1/2 cms. There wasabrasion on right infrascapular area. Linear andred, it was 7 cms x 1/2 cms. Above injuries may be caused by hard and blunt object. The above injuries were caused within 12 hours.All injuries were simple in nature. Accordinglyshe issued medical certificate. The contentstherein are true and correct. It bear hersignature. It also bear the thumb impression ofP.W.6 Jalindar which is at Exh.53.. She further deposed that on 22.3.2005 she receivedpolice yadi with police constable Gorde to examine apatent viz. Bhausaheb Mohan Mali. She examined the saidpatient. Accordinglyshe issued medical certificate. The contentstherein are true and correct. It bear hersignature. It also bear the thumb impression ofP.W.6 Jalindar which is at Exh.53.. She further deposed that on 22.3.2005 she receivedpolice yadi with police constable Gorde to examine apatent viz. Bhausaheb Mohan Mali. She examined the saidpatient. She found that his general condition was good.His height was 5 ft, 8 inch, his weight was 55 Kgs R/R 19per minutes, pulse 78 per minute. etc. She observedthat his penis was normal. Smegma absent. In her crossexamination nothing substantial was brought on record bythe defence to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.8 Dr.Manisha Hange. 14. P.W.9 Rajendra Eknath Wagh, is Executive Magistrate,Tahsildar Pathardi. He deposed that on 12.9.2004 P.I.Pathardi police station gave a letter to him for holdingidentification parade of accused Manik Mohan Gaikwad.Identification parade was arranged on 24.9.2004 in hiscabin. His clerks collected dummies. Police broughtwitnesses. He kept them in separate room. He called twopanchas for this identification parade. Six dummies wereasked to stand in a row. Police brought Manik MohanGaikwad accused by concealing his face by Burkha. Heasked him his name and informed him about identificationparade. He further deposed that he asked accused toselect his place in the row of dummies and change hisclothes. The accused refused to change his clothes.Accused preferred serial No.4 in the row of dummies andaccordingly stood in the row. He further deposed thatthereafter he called witness Deepali Jalindar in hiscabin. He asked Deepali to identify the accused bytouching his person from the row. Deepali observed allthe persons and identified accused Manik within twominutes. Deepali was then sent to another room. Then heasked accused Manik that he can change his place in therow and dress. Accused did not change his dress but hechanged his place and stood at serial No.7. Then hecalled witness Jalindar Narayan Shirsath. He asked himto identify the accused from the row. The witnessJalindar identified accused Manik by touching his personfrom the row. Detailed panchanama of identificationparade was drawn in presence of panchas. He put hissignature and also obtained signature of the panchas onthe panchanama. The panchanama shown to him bear hissignature and signatures of the panchas. The contentstherein are true and correct. The panchanama is atExh.59. Memorandum chart of identification parade of witness Deepali is at Exh.60. The memorandum chart of witness Jalindar of identification parade is at Exh.61.In all 12 persons were present for holding identification parade.. The panchanama shown to him bear hissignature and signatures of the panchas. The contentstherein are true and correct. The panchanama is atExh.59. Memorandum chart of identification parade of witness Deepali is at Exh.60. The memorandum chart of witness Jalindar of identification parade is at Exh.61.In all 12 persons were present for holding identification parade.. He further deposed that on 13.4.2005 he again received letter from police station for holding test identification parade, of accused Bhausaheb. The office copy of that letter was shown to him is the same. Itbears the endorsement of their clerk. It is at Exh.62.He immediately informed orally that test identificationparade will be held on 17.4.2005. He arrangedidentification parade in his cabin. He collected dummieswho are appearing similar with that of accused. Hecollected dummies as per the description given in theletter. He collected 6 dummies. He also collected twopanchas. Police brought accused Bhausaheb Mohan Mali byconcealing his face by "Burkha" in his cabin. Accuseddid not change his dress. He informed accused that hisidentification parade was going to be held there.Accused had chosen serial No.3 in the row. The witnesseswere kept in separate room. First he called witnessJalindar. He asked Jalindar to identify the accused fromthe standing persons in the row. Within two minutes,Jalindar identified accused by touching his person. ThenJalindar was sent to another room. He gave chance to theaccused to change his dress and place in the row. Theaccused did not change his dress but he changed his placein the row. Accused preferred serial No.4 in the row.He then called witness Deepali and asked her to identifythe accused from the row. Deepali saw all personsstanding in the row and within two minutes identifiedaccused at Sr. No.4. He drew detailed panchanama ofidentification parade. The panchanama bears hissignature and signature of the panchas. Memorandum chartalso bears his signature and signature of panchas. Thecontents of the panchanama of identification parade andchart of identification parade are true and correct.Panchanama of T.I. parade is at Exh.63 and charts ofidentification parade are at Exh. 64 and 65. Theaccused before the court is the same. The chart andpanchanama bear his signature and signatures of thepanchas. He further deposed that in all 12 persons werepresent while holding identification parade.. In his cross examination he denied that visitors, whovisit the premises of Tahsil office, could see theaccused. 64 and 65. Theaccused before the court is the same. The chart andpanchanama bear his signature and signatures of thepanchas. He further deposed that in all 12 persons werepresent while holding identification parade.. In his cross examination he denied that visitors, whovisit the premises of Tahsil office, could see theaccused. He further denied that the accused were shownto the witnesses first in the police and he drew thepanchanama in the police station. Even in his crossexamination nothing was brought on record by the defencewhich would lead to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.9. 15. P.W.10 is Dr. Suchitra Bappasaheb Khedkar. Sheexamined accused Manik Mohan Gaikwad. She foundfollowing injuries over the body of accused Manik MohanGaikwad:- 1. There were linear abrasions over left side offace as shown in the diagram and also linearabrasion over left side of the neck as shown inthe diagram and right side of the neck also.There was linear abrasion over posterior surfaceof left shoulder 1 cm. Linear abrasion overright side of lower back.. She further deposed that following samples were sentfor chemical analyser:- 1. Nails 2. Pubic hair 3. Semen 4. Blood in plaint and citrate 5. Pant and Banian. She identified accused Manik Mohan Gaikwad before thecourt. She opined that he is capable of committingsexual intercourse. The medical certificate was shown toher. She identified her signature and stated that thecontents are true and correct which is at Exh.69.. In her cross examination she denied the suggestionsthat the accused was not having injuries which are shownin Exh.69. Nothing was brought on record by the defencecounsel to disbelieve the version of P.W.10. 16. P.W.11 is the police Inspector Pandharinath BaburaoKedare. In his examination in chief he stated that on23.8.2004 at about 23.20 hours Head Constable Puriinformed him that one girl of 13 years was kidnapped andraped. He immediately came to the police station.Prosecutrix was brought by her parents in the policestation. P.S.I. Tidake also came there as he was onpatrolling duty in that area. Immediately she was sentfor medical examination. After medical examination shewas brought back to the police station. Then complaintwas lodged at Exh.42. Same is in the handwriting of headConstable Puri. He further deposed that prosecutrixsigned the complaint. He further deposed that P.S.I.Tidake took the prosecutrix and her father for medicalexamination to Rural Hospital, Pathardi. The father ofprosecutrix had also suffered injures and referred toRural hospital Pathardi alongwith medical yadi Exh. 48and 49. Then complaintwas lodged at Exh.42. Same is in the handwriting of headConstable Puri. He further deposed that prosecutrixsigned the complaint. He further deposed that P.S.I.Tidake took the prosecutrix and her father for medicalexamination to Rural Hospital, Pathardi. The father ofprosecutrix had also suffered injures and referred toRural hospital Pathardi alongwith medical yadi Exh. 48and 49. He further deposed that they blocked area forarresting the accused and started searching the accused.He further reported that the incident took place on22.8.2004. He further deposed that on 23.8.2004 theyvisited the forest land where the incident took place.Father of the prosecutrix Jalindar showed the spot. Heseized 10 muddemal articles i.e. pieces of hairs, piecesbangles, iron pipe, midi skirt having blood stains, torntop having blood stains, one white nicker having bloodstains, some stones having blood stains, hair bow, hairpin. He identified article Nos. 1 to 10 before theCourt and stated that those are the same articles whichwere attached from the spot. He further admitted thesignature on the panchanama which is at Exh.29. Hefurther deposed that muddemal receipt was shown to himwhich bears his signatures at Exh.71.. He further deposed that on search, they arrestedaccused Manik Mohan Gaikwad on 23.8.2004 at 17.30 hours.Arrest panchanama was drawn in presence of two panchas.He admits the arrest panchanama shown to him. He furtheradmits that panchanama Exh.72 contains his signature. Hefurther deposed that accused Manik was sent to RuralHospital Pathardi alongwith Yadi at Exh.68. He furtherstated that he seized sweater and underpant of accusedManik in presence of panchas under panchanama Exh.31. Hefurther stated that Muddemal is deposited with the clerk.The muddemal receipt shown to him is the same which bearshis signature at Exh.73. He identified the clothesarticles 11 and 12. He further deposed that he requestedTahsildar to draw map of the spot vide Exh.38. Hefurther deposed that clothes of accused Bhausaheb MohanMali were seized during search of his house under Exh.33.He admits signature of panch at Exh.33 as well as Exh.74.He further deposed that he obtained police custody ofaccused Manik till 6.9.2004. He further states that on2.9.2004 Muddemal was sent to Chemical AnalyserAurangabad with police constable Jabbar Pathan, buckleNo.419. He further deposed that on 9.9.2004 he obtainedpermission of J.M.F.C. Pathardi to hold testidentification parade of accused Manik Mohan Gaikwad. Heidentified his signature on the letter at Exh.76. Hefurther deposed that on 12.9.2004 he requested TahsildarPathardi to hold identification parade. Copy of the saidletter is at Exh.58. He further deposed that on 9.9.2004 he obtainedpermission of J.M.F.C. Pathardi to hold testidentification parade of accused Manik Mohan Gaikwad. Heidentified his signature on the letter at Exh.76. Hefurther deposed that on 12.9.2004 he requested TahsildarPathardi to hold identification parade. Copy of the saidletter is at Exh.58. He further deposed that on24.9.2004 test identification parade was held of accusedManik in Tahsil Office, Pathardi. A proclamation reportwas sent against absconding accused No.2 to J.M.F.C.Pathardi under Section 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C.. He issuedletter to Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar to declareaccused Bhausaheb as absconding. He further deposed thathe got knowledge that Bhausaheb was arrested in cycletheft in C.R. No. 45 of 2003 under Section 379 r.w. 34of I.P.C. by Pune police. On 22.3.2005 he arrestedaccused Bhausaheb with the permission of the Court. Hesought his police custody till 25.3.2005. On 31.3.2005he requested J.M.F.C. Pathardi to grant permission tohold identification parade of accused Bhausaheb. Herequested Tahsildar vide Exh.62 for holding testidentification parade of accused Bhausaheb andaccordingly Tahsildar held identification parade in hisoffice of accused Bhausaheb. He further deposed thatcharge sheet was submitted by him against accused No.2 on28.4.2005, as he was earlier absconding. He furtherdeposed that he received C.A. report. He identifiedC.A. report at Exh.82 to 85. He identified the accusedbefore the Court.. In his cross examination he admitted that he has notspecifically mentioned in the complaint about committingrape by the accused in the second rotation. He furtherdeposed that by way of correction figure 23 was scoredout and 22 is written in the complaint. He denied allother suggestions of the defence counsel. He denied thataccused No.1 went to demand money to Bajirao Dada Sheteand there was quarrel between Bajirao and accused No.1and therefore, on the say of Bajirao he arrested accusedNo.1 in this crime. He denied that he has falselydeposed before the Court. Nothing substantial wasbrought out by the defence on record to disbelieve theevidence of P.W.11. 17. P.W.1 Dagadu is panch to the spot panchanama. Inhis deposition at Exh.28 he stated that spot of theincident is at a distance of 700 to 800 feet from thevillage. The spot is situated in the field of JalindarNarayan Shirsath, father of the prosecutrix. He furtherdeposed that incident of rape took place at a distance ofabout 800 feet towards eastern side of the house ofJalindar. He further deposed that some pieces of bangle,hairs, hair pin, nicker, blouse etc. The spot is situated in the field of JalindarNarayan Shirsath, father of the prosecutrix. He furtherdeposed that incident of rape took place at a distance ofabout 800 feet towards eastern side of the house ofJalindar. He further deposed that some pieces of bangle,hairs, hair pin, nicker, blouse etc. near about 10things were seized by the police from the spot under thepanchanama. He further deposed that police drewpanchnama in his presence at 7.00 a.m.to 8.30 a.m. on23.8.2004. He further deposed that there was anotherpanch Ajinath Mahadeo Shirsath. He admitted the contentsof the panchanama. He admitted his signature on thepanchanama at Exh.29. He also identified seizedarticles. In his cross examination his testimony remainunshattered. 18. P.W.2 Bhausaheb Shankar Shirsath is another panchwitness. His deposition is at Exh.30. He deposed thaton 23.8.2004 police called him at police station.clothes of accused Manik Mohan Gaikwad were seized. Oneblue colour sweater and blue colour underpant wereseized. He further deposed that one Mahadeo Kondiba wasanother panch. He admitted his signature and thecontents in panchanama at Exh.31. Nothing was broughtout in the cross examination to disbelieve the evidenceof P.W.2. 19. P.W.3 is one Mr. Sambhaji Maruti Warkad, whoseevidence is at Exh.32. In his examination in chief hedeposed that Inspector Tidake called him in the policestation on 25.8.2004. He deposed that clothes of accusedBhausaheb Mohan Mali were found in the hut which wasowned by one Mohan Mali, father of accused No.2. Hefurther deposed that one white colour shirt was havingblood stains. The clothes were seized under panchanama,article Nos. 14 and 15. He identified the clothes. Healso identified the contents of panchanama and hissignature which is at Exh.33. In the cross examinationnothing was brought out on record by the counsel fordefence to disbelieve his evidence. 20. P.W.4 Jagdish Mohanrao Gade. He deposed that from4.8.2003 he was working as Circle Revenue Officer inPathardi taluka. He deposed that he went to Shirsathwadiand drew a map of the spot on 4.12.2004. He identifiedhis signature and the contents of the map which is atExh.39. 21. P.W.12 Ambadas Hari Sase is one of the witness,whose evidence is at Exh.88. He deposed that he gave hisopinion about the age of the prosecutrix at Exh.32, asunder:- 1. Ossification centre for head of radius appeared(6) but not fused (14) 2. Ossification centre for medical epicondylappeared (5) but not fused (14). Hence, Radiological age is between 6 to 14 years. Thecertificate bears his signature vide Exh.53. He deposed that he gave hisopinion about the age of the prosecutrix at Exh.32, asunder:- 1. Ossification centre for head of radius appeared(6) but not fused (14) 2. Ossification centre for medical epicondylappeared (5) but not fused (14). Hence, Radiological age is between 6 to 14 years. Thecertificate bears his signature vide Exh.53. Thecontents are true and correct. It is in hishandwriting.. He was cross examined. There is nothing to disbelievethe evidence of P.W.12. 22. P.W.13 Sadashiv Gangadhar Puri, police constablewhose evidence is at Exh.91. He deposed in hisexamination in chief that on 22.8.2004 from 8.00 a.m. to23.8.2004 8.00 a.m. he was on P.S.O. duty. In between10.45 p.m. to 11. p.m. he received telephonic messagefrom Shirsathwadi. Again he received another phone callafter five minutes. He received message that thieveskidnapped one girl. He informed the said fact to P.I.Kedare on phone and P.S.I. Tidake on wireless. Hecalled policemen for police line. He then gaveinformation on phone to control room and others. Hefurther deposed that after half an hour P.S.I. Tidake,prosecutrix, her parents came in the police station.Thereafter Kedare P.I. also came in the police station.Prosecutrix Deepali Jalindar Shirsath narrated complaintto him. He reduced the same in his handwriting andobtained signature of Deepali on the complaint. Heidentified his signature on the complaint Exh.42. Hedeposed that P.I. Kedare was present when he took thecomplaint. He further deposed that prosecutrix was sentfor medical examination. He further deposed that heregistered crime No.110 of 2004 under Section 376 (g),452,323 of I.P.C. He admitted his signature on thecomplaint at Exh.42. He further deposed that heregistered the said complaint at 0.45 hours on 23.8.2004.He also informed the police station of Ambhora and Ashtiabout the said crime.. In his cross examination, the defence counsel couldnot brought anything on record to disbelieve hisevidence. 23. P.W.14 is Jabbar Rahimkha Pathan, whose evidence isat Exh.92. He is constable buckle No. 419 serving inPathardi police station. He stated that he received 9 to10 sealed packets from Pathardi police station alongwithletter. The letter was addressed to C.A. Aurangabad.On 3.9.2004 he went to C.A. Aurangabad. He handed overthe said letter and sealed muddemal to C.A. office andobtained receipt of clerk of that office. 24. P.W.15 is Vikas Govindrao Tidake, his evidence is atExh.93. He deposed that on 22.8.2004 he was onpatrolling duty in Government Jeep. The letter was addressed to C.A. Aurangabad.On 3.9.2004 he went to C.A. Aurangabad. He handed overthe said letter and sealed muddemal to C.A. office andobtained receipt of clerk of that office. 24. P.W.15 is Vikas Govindrao Tidake, his evidence is atExh.93. He deposed that on 22.8.2004 he was onpatrolling duty in Government Jeep. At 10.45 p.m. Headconstable Puri informed him on wireless to go toShirsathwadi as the thieves arrived there and therefore,he proceeded to Shirsathwadi. He further deposed thatagain Head Constable Puri further informed him thatthieves have kidnapped one girl. He went to the spotfrom where the girl was kidnapped. At that timevillagers were already there. He made enquiry with theprosecutrix in her house, who narrated the incident. Hefurther deposed that he took prosecutrix to the policestation. Head Constable Puri recorded complaint ofDeepali. He further deposed that Deepali was taken toRural Hospital, Pathardi. He further deposed that on25.8.2004 he called two panchas and went to Dhamangaon atthe house of accused Bhausaheb Mohan Mali and took searchof his house. He further deposed that father of accusedBhausaheb handed over clothes of accused i.e. white fullshirt and white pant, which were changed by the accusedbefore two days as per the say of his father. There wereblood stains. He drew seizure panchanama in presence ofpanchas. He admitted his signature on the panchanama.In his cross examination he denied that whatever he hasstated in chief examination is not true. Nothingspecially was brought on record to disbelieve theevidence of P.W.15. 25. P.W.16 Aurn Rangnath Bhagwat, who is Head Master ofZilla Parishad School, where prosecutrix was prosecutingher studies. By way of his evidence, the prosecution hasproved that certificate issued by the school about age ofthe prosecutrix is correct as per the original schoolrecord maintained by the school. 26. On careful perusal of the deposition of P.W.5prosecutrix, it reveals that the incident took place in avery ghastly manner. The accused persons came to thehouse of prosecutrix. First they assaulted the father ofthe prosecutrix. Injury certificate issued in respect offather of prosecutrix Jalindar by P.W.8 shows thatJalindar had sustained injuries on his person, is a clearevidence that Jalindar was assaulted by accused persons.Accused persons forcibly opened the door of the house. 27. In the light of bulb, the prosecutrix clearly sawthe accused persons. Not only this, she has correctlydescribed those persons while narrating the complaint.She categorically in her deposition has narrated theincident. 27. In the light of bulb, the prosecutrix clearly sawthe accused persons. Not only this, she has correctlydescribed those persons while narrating the complaint.She categorically in her deposition has narrated theincident. She had given minute details in the complaintas well as in her deposition. She narrated about thecolour of the clothes, which were wore by the accusedpersons. She narrated about the face cut and complexionof the accused persons. She further narrated about therole played by each of the accused i.e. who caught holdher hands and who caught hold her legs. She furthernarrated that when she resisted the accused they slappedher. She further deposed that she saw the accusedpersons in the light of bulb and after that one of theaccused broke that bulb. She categorically stated in herdeposition that after that the person wearing white pantcaught her hands and person wearing black shirt caughthold her legs and lifted her and brought her out of thehouse. When she was trying to cry and tried to shout forhelp, she was slapped by the accused persons. She wasforcibly taken to hill side. In her statement shefurther deposed that accused persons first tore herclothes i.e. midi skirt and blouse and then accusedpersons removed her nicker. Accused persons raped hertwice. She has given minute details who has raped firstand who has raped afterwards. She further deposed thatwhile resisting accused persons, she sustained injurieson her face and chest etc. 28. The incident took place in the field of father ofprosecutrix. It has come in the deposition of panchwitness that spot of incident is at a distance of 700 to800 feet from the house of P.W.6. The prosecutrix hascategorically narrated the story about the incidentstarting from opening of the door by the accused persons,their entry in the house, role played by the accused incatching legs and hands of the prosecutrix, her carefulobservations of the accused persons in the bulb light,one of the accused broke the bulb. Accused personsdragged her out from the house when she was crying andtried to shout for help, the accused persons slapped her.They dragged her near hill. After they removed herclothes committed rape one after another. Whileresisting the accused persons, she sustained injuries onher chest and face. She narrated the complete story indetail. Her complete concentration was there and in thatstate of mind with full concentration she saw the accusedpersons in the light of bulb inside the house. After they removed herclothes committed rape one after another. Whileresisting the accused persons, she sustained injuries onher chest and face. She narrated the complete story indetail. Her complete concentration was there and in thatstate of mind with full concentration she saw the accusedpersons in the light of bulb inside the house. She hascategorically in her deposition stated that after shecarefully saw the accused persons one of the accusedbroke the bulb. She also had more opportunity to watchtheir faces and from very close distance, when they rapedher.. In her deposition she further deposed that whenaccused persons saw that some persons were proceedingtowards the spot, they ran away from the spot. Thefather of prosecutrix alongwith other villagers alongwithP.W.7 went to the spot. The prosecutrix narrated themincident in minute detail. The incident took place atabout 10.30 p.m. Immediately after the villagersproceeded to the spot of incident because the mother ofthe victim ran away to the village when the accusedpersons assaulted Jalindar before they entered in thehouse and on her call, villagers came there and thenfather Jalindar, who was assaulted by accused, in thetorch light and head lamp of motor cycle, proceededtowards the spot of the incident. By that time, accusedpersons ran away. 29. Narration of the prosecutrix about incident wasimmediate without lapse of any time. By that time, thepolice persons who were on patrolling also arrived there.Immediately the prosecutrix alongwith father accompaniedby one police person, who was on patrolling went to thepolice station and complaint came to be lodged. If thetime of the complaint is taken into consideration, whichwas at 0.45 hours on 23.8.2004, it means the incidenttook place at about 10.30 p.m. on 22.8.2003 and withintwo hours the prosecutrix narrated about incident inminute details. This is the case where the complaint waslodged so promptly and there was no breathing time evento think that the prosecutrix can add something in herversion. If narration of the prosecutrix as taken in thecomplaint as well as in the deposition before the Court,it clearly reveals that the incident certainly tookplace. She saw accused persons in the light of bulb.. Immediately after complaint was lodged, prosecutrixwas referred to the medical Officer. Medical Officer hasexamined her and clearly opined that rape was committedon her. The father of prosecutrix was also examined byDoctor after her examination. P.W.8 in her depositionhas stated that Jalindar also sustained injuries and tothat effect she issued certificate. There isoverwhelming medical evidence about the prosecutrix.. Immediately after complaint was lodged, prosecutrixwas referred to the medical Officer. Medical Officer hasexamined her and clearly opined that rape was committedon her. The father of prosecutrix was also examined byDoctor after her examination. P.W.8 in her depositionhas stated that Jalindar also sustained injuries and tothat effect she issued certificate. There isoverwhelming medical evidence about the prosecutrix.. So far as the age of the prosecutrix is concerned, indeposition of P.W.8 she has stated that her age is about13 years. The age of the prosecutrix has been proved bythe prosecution through P.W.12 and P.W.16. P.W.12 in hisexamination has stated that on ossification test her agewas in between 6 to 14 years. P.W.16 is the Head Masterof the school, who produced evidence in respect of dateof birth of prosecutrix, maintained by the school. Sofar as the incident of rape is concerned, the prosecutionhas proved the same beyond any doubt. 30. If the sequence of the events is taken intoconsideration, that incident took place at 10.30 p.m.,immediately villagers alongwith father of the victimreached to the spot then police persons on patrollingalso reached to the spot. Police persons tookprosecutrix alongwith her father to the police station.After going to the police station she narrated complaintimmediately. All these events took place within 2/3hours including medical examination of prosecutrix aswell as P.W.6 father of the prosecutrix. From all theseevents inference can be drawn that prosecution story isabsolutely correct. There was no room of doubt. Notinghas been brought by the defence on record to disbelieveall these events. 31. P.W.8 Dr. Manisha Narayan Hange has immediatelyafter the incident examined prosecutrix. In herelaborate evidence, she has opined that injuries found onface of the prosecutrix. She has also noted swelling andcontusions on rest of the body of prosecutrix. She hasalso examined genitals of the prosecutrix and found thathymen was traced off. There was presence of seconddegree perennial tear noted on left media laterallyincluding posterior vaginal wall upto 3 cms (b) perennialmuscle (c) perennial skin upto 3 cms. Fresh bleedingpresent through wound. There was tenderness over suprapubic area present. In her opinion, there was recentforceful sexual intercourse on the person of prosecutrix.Accordingly, she issued medical certificate ofprosecutrix vide Exh.50. In the cross examination of Dr.Manisha she has explained that bleeding was due to freshcut wound and not due to menstrual period. Thus evidenceof P.W.8 Dr. Manisha has proved sexual assault onprosecutrix.. There was tenderness over suprapubic area present. In her opinion, there was recentforceful sexual intercourse on the person of prosecutrix.Accordingly, she issued medical certificate ofprosecutrix vide Exh.50. In the cross examination of Dr.Manisha she has explained that bleeding was due to freshcut wound and not due to menstrual period. Thus evidenceof P.W.8 Dr. Manisha has proved sexual assault onprosecutrix.. Already in the foregoing paras the details in respectof examination in chief of P.W.8 Dr. Manisha has beendiscussed. In cross examination nothing is brought onrecord to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.8 Dr. Manisha.P.W.8 Dr. Manisha had also an occasion to examineaccused Bhausaheb on 22.3.2005. In her evidence onclinical examination of accused Bhausaheb, she statedthat patient is potent. The said medical certificate isat Exh.55.. Her evidence also disclosed that the father ofprosecutrix Jalindar P.W.6 had also sustained injuries.He was also examined by her immediately after prosecutrixwas medically examined. 32. P.W.10 Dr. Suchitra examined accused Manik MohanGaikwad on 23.8.2004 immediately after lapse of one dayfrom the date of incident. On examination she foundinjuries on the person of the accused. She saw there waslinear abrasions over left side of face and so alsolinear abrasion over left side of the neck and on theright side of the neck. There was linear abrasion overposterior surface of left shoulder and linear abrasionsover right side of lower back. According to evidence ofDr. Suchitra, all injuries were within 24 hours and theywere possible by hard and blunt object with light sharpedge. These injuries, are possible by nails when personis sexually assaulted. Dr. Suchitra also collectedsamples and sent for chemical analysis. According toher, accused Manik Mohan was capable to commit sexualintercourse. Accordingly, she issued medical certificatewhich is at Exh.69. The suggestions put that theinjuries can be possible by fall is denied. The evidenceof P.W.10 is convincing and proved beyond reasonabledoubt that the prosecutrix was raped and accused arepotent to commit the offence of rape. 33. Evidence of P.W.1 Dagadu Ghuge has proved spotpanchanama at Exh.29. Same is not shattered in the crossexamination. All articles which were mentioned inpanchanama were identified by P.W.1 before the Court.Those articles were also identified by the prosecutrix inher oral evidence. The prosecution has duly proved spotpanchanama. Finding those articles in detail itselfindicates that the prosecutrix was sexually assaulted inthat area during night time.. P.W.2 Bhausaheb Shirsath is another panch, who hasproved seizure of clothes of accused Manik Mohan underpanchanama Exh.31. The prosecution has duly proved spotpanchanama. Finding those articles in detail itselfindicates that the prosecutrix was sexually assaulted inthat area during night time.. P.W.2 Bhausaheb Shirsath is another panch, who hasproved seizure of clothes of accused Manik Mohan underpanchanama Exh.31. Evidence of P.W.3 Sambhaji Gaikwadhas proved seizure of clothes of accused Bhausaheb fromhis hut, where his father was present. The saidpanchanama is at Exh.33. Nothing is brought on record byway of cross examination by the appellants to disbelievethe evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. The evidence of both thewitnesses is quite convincing.. Evidence of P.W.7 Ajinath Dnyandeo is also additionalchain to the prosecution story. He went alongwith themother of prosecutrix to the spot alongwith other personsfrom village and they went in search of the prosecutrixto that extent there is nothing to doubt his testimony. 34. Before we proceed to discuss about identification ofthe accused persons and manner in which theidentification parade was conducted by the prosecution,we would like to refer certain observations of theSupreme Court in respect of importance of conducting testidentification parade. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in caseof Mahabir Vs. State of Delhi reported in AIR 2008 SC2343 has held that the test identification parade do notconstitute substantive evidence and identification canonly be used as corroborative of statement in Court. Themain object of holding identification parade duringinvestigation stage is to test memory of witnesses basedupon first impression and also to enable prosecution todecide whether all or any of them could be cited as eyewitnesses of crime. Test identification parade should be conducted as soonas possible after arrest of accused to eliminatepossibility of accused being shown to witnesses prior toparade. The purpose of holding test identificationparade is to test and strengthen trustworthiness of theevidence. It is considered a safe rule of prudence togenerally look for corroboration of sworn testimony ofwitnesses in Court. Test identification parade belongsto stage of investigation there is no provision inCr.P.C. which obliges investigating agency to hold orconfers a right upon accused to claim test identificationparade. It is further held that the test identificationparade are essentially governed by Section 162 of Cr.P.C.Failure to hold same would not make inadmissible evidenceof identification in Court. It is further held that testidentification parade in appropriate case, may accept theevidence of identification even without insisting oncorroboration. 35. It is further held that the test identificationparade are essentially governed by Section 162 of Cr.P.C.Failure to hold same would not make inadmissible evidenceof identification in Court. It is further held that testidentification parade in appropriate case, may accept theevidence of identification even without insisting oncorroboration. 35. We have to proceed keeping in mind thatidentification parade is the stage of investigation andthere is no provision in Cr.P.C. which obligesinvestigating agency to hold or confers a right uponaccused to claim test identification parade. Further inappropriate cases, court may accept the evidence ofidentification even without insisting of corroboration.We have to bear in mind that failure to hold testidentification would not make inadmissible evidence ofidentification in Court. 36. P.W. 11 Police Inspector who investigated the casein his examination in chief stated that, on search,accused Manik Mohan Gaikwad was arrested on 23.8.2004 at17.30 p.m. hours. Arrest panchanama was drawn inpresence of two panchas. He admitted his signature andcontents of panchanama before the Court at Exh.72. Hefurther deposed that he sent accused Manik to RuralHospital Pathardi for medical examination. He furtherdeposed that he seized sweater and under pant of accusedManik under panchanama at Exh.31 in presence of panchas.He further deposed that clothes of accused Manik MohanMali were seized during search of his house underpanchanama Exh.33.. He further deposed that he obtained police custody ofaccused Manik till 6.9.2004. On 2.9.2004 muddemal wassent to Chemical Analyses at Aurangabad with policeconstable Jabbar Pathan.. On 9.9.2004 he obtained permission of J.M.F.C.Pathardi to hold identification parade of accused Manik.He admitted that the copy of letter shown to him wassigned by him at Exh.76. On 12.9.2004 he requestedTahsildar Pathardi to hold identification parade. Thatletter is at Exh.58. On 24.9.2004 identification paradeof accused manik was held in Tahsil Officer, Pathardi.. Proclamation report was sent against abscondingaccused No.2 by J.M.F.C. Pathardi under Sections 82 and83 of Cr.P.C. Letter was issued to Superintendent ofPolice, Ahmednagar to declare accused Bhausaheb asabsconding. The said letter is at Exh.77. Copy of thesaid letter was also sent to the police station Ashti andAmbhora. The said letters are Exh.78.. He further deposed that he got knowledge aboutwhereabouts of the absconding accused Bhausaheb, who wasarrested in cycle theft case in Crime No. 45 of 2003under Section 379 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. by Pune police. Herequested J.M.F.C. Pathardi to transfer the said accusedto this case. Office copy of that letter is admitted byhim. The said letters are Exh.78.. He further deposed that he got knowledge aboutwhereabouts of the absconding accused Bhausaheb, who wasarrested in cycle theft case in Crime No. 45 of 2003under Section 379 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. by Pune police. Herequested J.M.F.C. Pathardi to transfer the said accusedto this case. Office copy of that letter is admitted byhim. He also admitted signature on the said letter whichis at Exh.79. He further deposed that on 22.3.2005 hearrested accused Bhausaheb with permission of the Courtin presence of Panchas. Accused was sent for medicalexamination. His police custody was sought till28.3.2005. On 31.3.2005, he requested J.M.F.C. Pathardito grant permission to hold identification parade ofaccused Bhausaheb. The said letter by which permissionwas sought is at Exh.81. He admitted the contents andsignature of the said letter. Vide Exh.62 he requestedTahsildar for holding identification parade of accusedBhausaheb and accordingly Tahsildar held identificationparade of accused in his office. He further deposed thatcharge sheet was submitted against accused No.2 on28.4.2005.. In cross examination suggestion was put to him that heis giving false evidence, he arrested accused No.1 on23.8.2004 under panchanama. He denied said suggestion.He further denied suggestion that Manik was not sent formedical examination. He denied all suggestions. Thereis nothing in the cross examination of P.W.11 todisbelieve his evidence. He further deposed thatidentification of accused No.2 Bhausaheb was held on13.4.2005. 37. We have carefully perused the examination in chiefof investigation officer. He has taken timely action inthe matter. Accused No.1 Manik was arrested immediatelyon 23.8.2004. His identification parade was conducted byExecutive Magistrate, Tahsildar on 24.9.2004. In hisexamination in chief he has deposed all events from thedate of arrest of the accused till identification paradewas conducted. In the said identification parade P.W.5and P.W.6 identified accused No.1 i.e. Manik MohanGaikwad. If examination in chief of P.W.11 is perusedcarefully, in our considered opinion, there is no delayin holding the identification parade of accused No.1. 38. In case of accused No.2 Bhausaheb it is stated byP.W.11 that since he was absconding, he issued letter toSuperintendent of Police, Ahmednagar to declare accusedBhausaheb as absconding, which is at Exh.77. He furtherdeposed that absconding accused Bhausaheb was arrested incycle theft and he got knowledge about the sameimmediately. He requested J.M.F.C. Pathardi for custodyof the said accused. Copy of that letter is at Exh.79has been duly proved. The absconding accused No.2Bhausaheb was arrested on 22.3.2005. He furtherdeposed that absconding accused Bhausaheb was arrested incycle theft and he got knowledge about the sameimmediately. He requested J.M.F.C. Pathardi for custodyof the said accused. Copy of that letter is at Exh.79has been duly proved. The absconding accused No.2Bhausaheb was arrested on 22.3.2005. In his examinationin chief he stated in detail about the events took placefrom his arrest till identification parade of accusedNo.2 by the Executive Magistrate, which was held on13.4.2005. Therefore, though the incident took place on22.8.2004 and the identification parade of accused No.2was conducted on 13.4.2005, it cannot be said that therewas delay. In view of the observations of the SupremeCourt in the case Mahabir (supra), identification paradeshould be conducted as son as possible after arrest ofthe accused. Therefore, there is no substance in thecontention of the advocate for the appellants/accusedthat there was delay in holding test identificationparade. 39. P.W.9 is the Executive Magistrate who conductedidentification parade of accused persons. In hisdeposition before the Court at Exh.57 he has stated thaton 12.9.2004 P.I. Pathardi gave a letter to him forholding test identification parade of accused Manik MohanGaikwad. He further deposed that he arrangedidentification parade on 24.9.2004 in his cabin. Hisclerks collected dummies. Police brought witnesses. Hekept them in separate room. He called two panchas foridentification parade. Six dummies were asked to standin a row. Police brought Manik Mohan Gaikwad accused byconcealing his face by Burkha. He asked him his name andinformed him about identification parade. He furtherdeposed that he asked accused to select his place in therow of dummies and change his clothes. The accusedrefused to change his clothes. Accused preferred serialNo.4 in the row of dummies and accordingly stood in therow. He further deposed that thereafter he calledwitness Deepali Jalindar in his cabin. He asked Deepalito identify the accused by touching his person from therow. Deepali observed all the persons and identifiedaccused Manik within two minutes. Deepali was then sentto another room. Then he asked accused Manik that he canchange his place in the row and dress. Accused did notchange his dress but he changed his place and stood atserial No.7. Then he called witness Jalindar NarayanShirsath. He asked him to identify the accused from therow. Witness Jalindar identified accused Manik bytouching his person from the row. Detailed panchanama ofidentification parade was drawn, in presence of panchas.He put his signature and also obtained signature of thepanchas on panchanama. Then he called witness Jalindar NarayanShirsath. He asked him to identify the accused from therow. Witness Jalindar identified accused Manik bytouching his person from the row. Detailed panchanama ofidentification parade was drawn, in presence of panchas.He put his signature and also obtained signature of thepanchas on panchanama. The panchanama shown to him whichbear his signature and signatures of the panchas. Thecontents therein are true and correct. The panchanama isat Exh.59. Memorandum chart of identification parade ofwitness Deepali is at Exh.60. The memorandum chart ofwitness Jalindar of identification parade is at Exh.61.In all 12 persons were present for holding identificationparade.. He further deposed that on 13.4.2005 he again receivedletter from police station for holding testidentification parade, of accused Bhausaheb. The officecopy of that letter was shown to him is the same. Itbears endorsement of their clerk. It is at Exh.62. Heimmediately informed orally that test identificationparade will be held on 17.4.2005. He arrangedidentification parade in his cabin. He collected dummieswho are appearing similar to that of accused. Hecollected dummies as per the description given in theletter. He collected 6 dummies. He also collected twopanchas. Police brought accused Bhausaheb Mohan Mali byconcealing his face by "Burkha" in his cabin. Accuseddid not change his dress. He informed accused that hisidentification parade was going to be held there.Accused had chosen serial No.3 in row. The witnesseswere kept in separate room. First he called witnessJalinder. He asked Jalinder to identify the accused fromthe standing persons in the row. Jalinder identifiedaccused by touching his person. Then Jalindar was sentto another room. He gave chance to the accused to changehis dress and place in the row. The accused did notchange his dress but he changed his place in the row.Accused preferred serial No.4 in the row. He then calledwitness Deepali and asked her to identify the accusedfrom the row. Deepali saw all persons standing in therow and identified accused at Sr. No.4. He drewdetailed panchanama of identification parade. Thepanchanama bear his signature and signature of thepanchas. Memorandum chart also bear his signature andsignature of panchas. The contents of the panchanama ofidentification parade and chart of identification paradeare true and correct. Panchanama of T.I. parade is atExh.63 and chart of identification parade are at Exh. 64and 65. The accused before the court is the same. Thechart and panchanama bear his signature and signatures ofthe panchas. Memorandum chart also bear his signature andsignature of panchas. The contents of the panchanama ofidentification parade and chart of identification paradeare true and correct. Panchanama of T.I. parade is atExh.63 and chart of identification parade are at Exh. 64and 65. The accused before the court is the same. Thechart and panchanama bear his signature and signatures ofthe panchas. He further deposed that in all 12 persons,as dummies were present while holding identificationparade.. In his cross examination he denied that accused can beseen by somebody who visited the premises of TahsilOffice though police station and jail are situated in thesame campus of Tahsil Office. In cors examination hedenied the suggestion that he is giving false evidence.All suggestions put by the defence counsel are denied byP.W.9. There is nothing brought on record by the defenceto disbelieve his evidence. His evidence is veryconvincing. He conducted the test identification paradeafter following proper procedure. There was noopportunity for the witnesses to see the accused personsbefore identification parade. His deposition inexamination in chief has not shattered by any way incross examination. He clearly stated that P.W.5 andP.W.6 prosecutrix and father Jalindar respectivelyidentified accused persons in the test identificationparade. Test identification parade was carried outproperly after following proper procedure. There was noopportunity to witnesses to see accused persons beforethey were put to identification parade. If the evidenceof P.W.9 is taken into consideration there is no doubtthat he has conducted identification period properlyafter following due procedure, therefore, the contentionof the appellants-accused that identification was notproperly carried out as per the procedure is required tobe rejected.. We hold that there was proper identification of theaccused persons by the victim who was near about 12 yearsold. She could not have forgotten face of accusedpersons who committed ghastly crime upon her. It cansafely be said that identity of the accused is amplyestablished by her evidence. Even P.W.6 father ofprosecutrix has identified both the accused inidentification parade. Evidence of P.W.9 ExecutiveMagistrate/Tahsildar is not shattered in his crossexamination. 40. In this case Chemical Analyser report is material.C.A. reports are Exh. 82 to 85. P.W.14 was examined toestablish that articles were properly sealed and samewere sent to chemical analyzer. P.W.14 in his depositionstated that Exh.92 on 2.9.2004 he received sealed packetfrom Pathardi police station alongwith a letter addressedto Chemical Analyzer, Aurangabad and he handed overletter Exh.75 and obtained receipt from C.A. office.. Evidence of P.W.8 Dr. 82 to 85. P.W.14 was examined toestablish that articles were properly sealed and samewere sent to chemical analyzer. P.W.14 in his depositionstated that Exh.92 on 2.9.2004 he received sealed packetfrom Pathardi police station alongwith a letter addressedto Chemical Analyzer, Aurangabad and he handed overletter Exh.75 and obtained receipt from C.A. office.. Evidence of P.W.8 Dr. Manisha and P.W.10 Dr.Suchitra prove that they collected usual samples asrequired to be taken. C.A. report Exh 82 to 85 arereceived by P.W.11. C.A. report Exh.82 is given aboutMuddemal articles which are 13 in numbers. They aresweater, nicker, pieces of glass bangles, torn skirt, cutladies shirt, jangya, full pant.. All these articles are having blood stains. Out ofthem Exh. 4,5, 6 and 8 i.e. torn skirt, cut ladiesshirt, jangya and stones are stained with blood group"A". "A’ blood group is of prosecutrix. Exh.84, fullpant of accused Manik Mohan was having blood stains ofblood group "A’ which is blood group of prosecutrix,while blood group of accused Manik was "B". Thus, on thepant of accused Manik Mohan blood stains of blood ofprosecutrix were found. This is also clinching piece ofevidence against accused Manik. There is no explanationoffered by accused Manik Mohan how these blood stains of"A" blood group were found on his pant. 41. Another accused Bhausaheb Mohan was specificallyidentified by prosecutrix and P.W.6 Jalindar. It hasfurther came in the evidence of P.W.11 that clothes ofaccused Bhausaheb were seized during search of his houseunder panchanama Exh.32. P.W.3 was witness to the saidpanchanama. Blood stained pant and shirt were seizedfrom the house of accused Bhausaheb. C.A. report atExh.82 shows that full pant wrapped in paper labelled E/2which was recovered from the house of accused Bhausahebwas sent to Chemical Analyser. Chemical Analyser’sreport shows that Exh.13 has few blood stains rangingfrom 0.1 cm x 2.00 cm. diameters of both pockets. 42. The contention of the advocate for the appellantsthat in respect of C.A. report no question was put toaccused persons, is required to be rejected becausequestion No. 63 was put to accused No.1 Manik thatP.W.11 Pandharinath further deposed that Muddemal wassent to Chemical analyser’s report. C.A. report are atExh. 82 to 85, what you have to say? So far as accusedNo.2 Bhausaheb is concerned, question No. 57 was put tohim while recording his statement under Section 313 ofCr.P.C. that P.W.11 further deposed that the clothes ofBhausaheb were also seized during panchanama Exh.33, whatyou have to say? 43. C.A. report are atExh. 82 to 85, what you have to say? So far as accusedNo.2 Bhausaheb is concerned, question No. 57 was put tohim while recording his statement under Section 313 ofCr.P.C. that P.W.11 further deposed that the clothes ofBhausaheb were also seized during panchanama Exh.33, whatyou have to say? 43. The defence of accused No.2 Bhausaheb under 313 wasthat there is enmity between him and accused No.1 andtherefore, accused No.1 falsely involved him in thepresent case. Learned Sessions Court has recorded thatboth accused have engaged same lawyer and that itself isindicative that such defence of the accused No.2 thatthere was enmity between accused Nos. 1 and 2 requiredto be rejected. 44. The prosecution has established that the accusedpersons took the prosecutrix from her house. Accusedpersons were seen by the prosecutrix in bulb light. Whenthe incident took place at that time the prosecutrix wasminor. Accused persons first assaulted the father of thevictim. She was taken forcibly without her consent andtherefore, the Sessions Court has rightly held thatoffence of kidnapping of lawful guardianship has takenplace which is punishable under section 363 r.w. 34 ofI.P.C.. Accused persons not only kidnapped the minor girl butsubjected to forcible sexual intercourse and furthercommitted offence punishable under Section 376(g) r.w.34 of I.P.C. 45. P.W.6 father of the prosecutrix was also assaultedby the accused persons. P.W.8 Dr. Manisha in herevidence has deposed about medical examination ofJalindar. Medical certificate at Exh.54 is duly provedby the prosecution. Thus, offence of voluntarily causinghurt is proved against both the accused. In the presentcase F.I.R. is promptly lodged. Medical examination wasalso conducted immediately with few hours from theincident. 46. In rape cases mere statement of prosecutrix, if itis 100% trustworthy, is sufficient to convict theaccused. In the case in hand, accused persons committedgang rape on minor girl below 12 years of age in ghastlymanner. P.W.5 prosecutrix in her deposition narrated theincident in detail. She has given description of theaccused persons in detail. She has also given roleplayed by each of the accused while taking her out fromhouse. She has clearly stated that she saw both theaccused persons in the light of bulb. The entireincident is unforgettable for the prosecutrix. Herstatement in examination in chief is not shattered in anyway in cross. According to us, said statement is fullytrustworthy. Her version is corroborated by medicalevidence in material particulars by way of evidence ofP.W.8 Dr. Manisha. Evidence of P.W.11 InvestigationOfficer is also convincing.. The entireincident is unforgettable for the prosecutrix. Herstatement in examination in chief is not shattered in anyway in cross. According to us, said statement is fullytrustworthy. Her version is corroborated by medicalevidence in material particulars by way of evidence ofP.W.8 Dr. Manisha. Evidence of P.W.11 InvestigationOfficer is also convincing.. Identification of the accused in test identificationparade has been proved through evidence of P.W.9. Theprosecutrix has identified both the accused persons inidentification parade. As we have already discussed inearlier paragraph that test identification parade doesnot constitute substantive evidence and identificationcan only be used as corroborative of statement in Court.The main object of holding identification parade duringinvestigation stage is to test memory of witnesses basedupon first impression and also to enable prosecution todecide whether all or any of them could be cited as eyewitnesses of crime. Test identification parade should beconducted as soon as possible after arrest of accused toeliminate possibility of accused being shown to witnessesprior to parade. The purpose of holding testidentification parade is to test and strengthentrustworthiness of the evidence. It is considered a saferule of prudence to generally look for corroboration ofsworn testimony of witnesses in Court. Testidentification parade belongs to stage of investigationthere is no provision in Cr.P.C. which obligesinvestigating agency to hold or confers a right uponaccused to claim test identification parade.. Test identification parade are essentially governed bySection 162 of Cr.P.C. Failure to hold same would notmake inadmissible evidence of identification in Court. The test identification parade in appropriate case, mayaccept the evidence of identification even withoutinsisting on corroboration.. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that there isno provision in Cr.P.C. which obliges investigationagency to hold identification parade. On the strength ofevidence of P.W.11 and P.W.9 we hold that P.W.9 hasproperly carried out identification parade as perprocedure. There is nothing brought on record by thedefence to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.9. Hisevidence is not in any way shattered in the crossexamination. P.W.11 Investigating Officer hascategorically stated about arrest of accused persons.His request to the Magistrate to put accused foridentification, his letter to the executive Magistratefor conducting test identification parade and accordinglytest identification parade was conducted by P.W.9. Whatis relevant is to conduct the identification parade afterarrest of accused as soon as it is possible. 47. In case of accused No.2 he was arrested on22.3.2005. Immediately, P.W.11 Investigating Officer hastaken steps to carry out identification parade. Whatis relevant is to conduct the identification parade afterarrest of accused as soon as it is possible. 47. In case of accused No.2 he was arrested on22.3.2005. Immediately, P.W.11 Investigating Officer hastaken steps to carry out identification parade. Inserious crime like the case in hands, offence of gangrape is committed by the accused persons on minor girland when there is convincing evidence of the medicalOfficer, Investigating Officer, Executive Magistrate andall other panchas, who are witnesses to the panchanama.We have no hesitation to hold that incident took placeand accused persons were involved, who first assaultedthe prosecutrix. Prosecutrix saw them in the light ofbulb and thereafter she was taken out of the house toforest near hill and rape was committed on her by boththe accused persons. Medical evidence corroborates theversion of prosecutrix. 48. There is additional link connecting accused personsto the incident is that of C.A. report about accusedNo.1, it does indicate that blood stains were detected onhis clothes having blood group "A" which is blood groupof prosecutrix. In case of accused No.2 the clotheswhich were recovered from his house immediately withintwo days from the date of incident, the C.A. reportindicates that blood stains on the pant of accused arehuman.. In our considered view, the prosecution has proved itscase beyond reasonable doubt. 49. In addition to the above evidence, evidence of P.W.6is also on record, who is father of prosecutrix. P.W.8who medically examined P.W.6 and has given certificatethat Jalindar sustained simple injuries. It cannot beforgotten that the incident took place at around 10.30p.m., F.I.R. lodged immediately and thereafter medicalexamination was carried out immediately. All thesethings happened within 2/3 hours from the incident. 50. Criminal Appeal No.219 of 2006 is filed by the theState of Maharashtra for enhancement of sentence of theaccused persons in the said case. The Sessions Court hasconvicted the accused persons under Section 235 ofCr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 376 (g)of the I.P.C. and they were directed to suffer R.I. for10 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each. They are alsoconvicted and sentenced for offences under otherSections. However, the trial court has directed that allsubstantive sentences to run concurrently. 51. Learned A.P.P. has submitted that the offencecommitted by accused persons is very serious. They havecommitted the same in ghastly manner. A minor girl wasraped by the accused persons. They are alsoconvicted and sentenced for offences under otherSections. However, the trial court has directed that allsubstantive sentences to run concurrently. 51. Learned A.P.P. has submitted that the offencecommitted by accused persons is very serious. They havecommitted the same in ghastly manner. A minor girl wasraped by the accused persons. Therefore, taking intoconsideration the entire evidence which is brought by theprosecution on record, the trial court ought to haveawarded maximum sentence to the accused. 52. The trail court has considered the seriousness ofcrime and considering that the parents of accused No.1are old one, his father is handicapped. Similarlyparents of accused No.2 are also old aged, he is alsohaving large family like that of accused No.1, came tothe correct conclusion and passed appropriate orderconvicting the accused persons. In our opinion, thetrial court has properly considered this aspect and we donot see any reason to enhance the sentence awarded by thetrial court. 53. In the result, the impugned judgment and orderpassed by the III Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge,Ahmednagar dated 3.12.2005 in Sessions Case No. 202 of2004 is confirmed. Criminal Appeal Nos. 219 of 2006filed by the State of Maharashtra and Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2007 filed by the accused persons are dismissed. 54. Certified copy of this judgment be furnished to theaccused persons through concerned prison authorities freeof costs. Ordered accordingly.