JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The instant appeals are directed against the judgment of 1.11.2017, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra (H.P), in Session Case No. 8-I/VII/2015, whereby, the learned trial Court convicted, and, sentenced the appellants/accused to (a) undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, and, to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, for commission of offence, punishable under Section 452 read with Section 34 of the IPC, (b) undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, and, to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, for commission of offence, punishable under Section 365 readwith Section 34 of the IPC, (c) undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twenty years, and, to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, for commission of offence, punishable under Section 376D readwith Section 34 of the IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the husband of the prosecutrix was working as a labourer at Lali stone Crusher, Dhangu-Mazra Road. The prosecutrix was residing with her husband, and, a three years old son in a quarter near the Lali stone crusher. On 24.3.2015 at about 7.00-8.00 P.M. accused Shiv Singh alias Lambu, Rakesh and Pankaj, who were working at Pathania Stone Crusher came to the quarter of the prosecutrix, and, consumed liquor with the husband of the prosecutrix, and, left after about half an hour. At about 11.00- 11.30 P.M when the prosecutrix, her husband, and, their son, were sleeping, the accused persons entered the quarter of the prosecutrix and gagged her mouth and lifted her from her bed and took her to a quarter that was lying vacant and raped her one by one. The prosecutrix tried to raise alarm but the accused Shiv Singh alias Lambu gagged her mouth. After committing rape, the accused persons lifted the prosecutrix, and, left her near her quarter. The prosecutrix informed her husband, who took her to Saroj, the chowkidar of the stone crusher. The prosecutrix tried to raise alarm but the accused Shiv Singh alias Lambu gagged her mouth. After committing rape, the accused persons lifted the prosecutrix, and, left her near her quarter. The prosecutrix informed her husband, who took her to Saroj, the chowkidar of the stone crusher. Saroj informed the police, and, accordingly police came at Lali Stone Crusher, where the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 154 of Cr.P.C was recorded by ASI Mohinder Kumar. On the basis of the said statement, formal FIR was registered, and, on conclusion of the investigation, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and presented in the Court. 3. The accused persons were charged by the learned trial Court, for, theirs having committed offences punishable, under, Sections 452, 365, and, under section 376-D readwith Section 34 of IPC, to, which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 26 witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded, wherein, they pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. They did not choose to lead, any evidence in defence. 5. On appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction against the accused/appellants. 6. The accused/appellants are aggrieved by the recording of judgment of conviction, and, consequent therewith sentence, imposed, upon them, by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel(s) appearing for the appellants/accused have concertedly, and, vigorously contended, that, the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court, standing, not based on a proper appreciation by it, of, the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation, by it, of the material on record. Hence, they, contend that the findings of conviction, being reversed by this Court, in, exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced by findings of acquittal. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Hemant Vaid, learned Additional Advocate General, has, with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of conviction, recorded by the learned Court below, standing, based on a mature and balanced appreciation, by it, of the evidence on record, hence, theirs not necessitating any interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 8. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Hemant Vaid, learned Additional Advocate General, has, with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of conviction, recorded by the learned Court below, standing, based on a mature and balanced appreciation, by it, of the evidence on record, hence, theirs not necessitating any interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. Ms. Sheetal Vyas, learned Counsel for the appellants, has made a fervent espousal before this Court, that, the appellants/accused, rather proving their non-participation, in the relevant incriminatory occurrence, given (a) the testimony of the prosecutrix being not credible (b) lack of it being confidence inspiring, (c) hers failing to, during the course of recording, of her deposition in Court, hence identity the accused/appellants, (d) and, hers during the course of her cross-examination, by the learned PP concerned, upon, hers being declared hostile, rather acquiescing to, a, suggestion, put thereat, to her, by the learned PP, vis-a-vis, hers not disclosing the names of convicts/accused, to be the persons, who had allegedly perpetrated hence forcible sexual intercourse rather upon her, (e) the DNA expert after making analysis of the vaginal swabs', of the prosecutrix, sent thereat, for, comparison, hence with the blood grouping(s) of the accused/convicts, also omitting to render any firm opinion therein, vis-a-vis, upon, his making the requisite comparison, with the vaginal swabs of the prosecutrix with the blood grouping of co-accused Pankaj, hence qua his participating, in, the relevant sexual encounter, (f) thereupon, the deposition of the prosecutrix, even if it, may acquire any credibility rather its credibility being eroded by the afore non-echoings, vis-a-vis, co-accused Pankaj. 10. This Court, has, read the testification recorded by the prosecutrix, and, it is apparent, on, an incisive reading, of the testimony of the prosecutrix, comprised both in her examinationin-chief, and, in her cross-examination, vis-a-vis, the defence propagating rather the plea of absolute denial, and, it not propagating the plea qua sexual intercourse(s) which occurred, inter-se, the prosecutrix and the accused, hence, being a sequel of, any, valid consent, if any, purveyed to each, hence, by the prosecutrix, consequently, it is to be fathomed from the testification rendered by the prosecutrix, vis-a-vis, the afore alluded submission, rather carrying any weight or tenacity. Further more, the defence(s) espousal, vis-a-vis, the non-participation of the accused, in, the relevant penal misdemeanors, is bedrocked, upon, qua given prevalence of darkness, at the relevant time, thereupon, there being rather misidentification of the accused, hence, by the prosecutrix, the effects whereof are (a) qua the accused, hence being forbidden, to, espouse qua there being any valid consent being meted to them, by the prosecutrix, for theirs perpetrating sexual intercourse(s) upon her (b) also given the numerical number(s) of the accused, hence theirs' being rather enabled to overpower, the prosecutrix, besides obviously theirs holding the physical capacity, to, benumb any resistive, and, obstructive postures, of the prosecutrix, vis-a-vis, their penal misdemeanors, (c) thereupon, an inference is sparked qua it being wholly inconsequential, qua omission(s), of occurrence(s), of, injuries either on the person of the prosecutrix, or, upon the accused, nor hence, from the afore omission(s), any concomitant sequel can be begotten, qua the prosecutrix meteing any valid consent to the accused. Upon a wholesome reading of the testimony, of the prosecutrix, hence, with a keen discerning mind, this Court is of the view, that the afore espousals, made before this Court, by the learned counsel for the appellants, being also legally frail, given (a) a perusal of the statement, recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, in proceedings, drawn, under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, of the prosecutrix, rather making unveiling(s) qua hers making clear disclosure(s) therein, vis-a-vis, the names of all the co-accused, and, also it revealing qua hers naming them, as, the alleged offender(s), in, the relevant inculpatory occurrence, (b) and, with PW-20 (Niranjan Singh) also while stepping into the witness box hence proving the statement of the prosecutrix, as, embodied in Ex. PW-1/D, wherein reiteratedly, the names, of, all the convicts/accused rather are borne (c) besides his also testifying, in his examination-in-chief, vis-a-vis, his after explaining, and, reading, to the prosecutrix, all the contents borne therein, hence thereafter, the prosecutrix, appending her thumb impression(s), in red circle 'A', upon, PW-1/D, (d) furthermore, his also testifying qua the prosecutrix, being identified, by the Investigating Officer. In addition with his, in his testification, embodied in his examination-in-chief, proving his appending a certificate, comprised in Ex. PW-20/D, with a clear echoing borne therein, vis-a-vis, rather with the fullest volition, the prosecutrix, making a statement embodied in Ex. In addition with his, in his testification, embodied in his examination-in-chief, proving his appending a certificate, comprised in Ex. PW-20/D, with a clear echoing borne therein, vis-a-vis, rather with the fullest volition, the prosecutrix, making a statement embodied in Ex. PW-1/D hence before him, (e) and, though he was also subjected, to, an exacting cross-examination, by the learned defence counsel, however, the learned defence counsel rather failing to mete any suggestion to him, vis-a-vis, the thumb impression(s) borne in Ex. PW-1/D, rather not belonging to the prosecutrix, (f) nor, any apposite suggestion standing thereat put to her, vis-a-vis, the validity of the certificate appended with PW-1/D, (g) and, rather the afore certificate carrying, an apt narration, qua the prosecutrix, making with her fullest volition hence a statement before him, against the convicts/accused, (h) cumulative effect(s) whereof, is, rather an inference standing sparked, vis-a-vis, hence the afore testification, obviously belittling the creditworthiness, if any, of the prosecutrix, to, while stepping into the witness box hence fail, to, during the course of her examination-in-chief, rather identify the accused, (j) nor also her mere oral deposition, comprised in her cross-examination, vis-a-vis, hers not naming the accused, in her previous statement recording in writing, also not either outweighing or countervailing, the deposition, of PW-20, vis-avis, the prosecutrix volitionally rather making the apposite statement, borne in Ex.PW-1/D, (k) and, nor thereupon, the validity of his certificate embodied in Ex. PW-20/D, becomes belied, as, any oral deposition, of the prosecutrix in detraction, to the proven recitals, borne in Ex. PW-1/D, and, in certificate Ex. PW-20/D, is, statutorily barred, through, the statutory estoppal created, under Sections 91, and, 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, for hence for any credit being assigned thereto. 11. Reiteratedly, when she has failed, to deny her signatures, occurring in the certificate, consequently also, for all the afore reasons, the testification of the prosecutrix, is rendered both inspiring, and, creditworthy, and, the learned trial Court, has not committed any error in convicting and sentencing each, of the accused, for, terms of imprisonment, carried in the order sentencing each of them. Further more, the prosecutrix in her testimony, comprised in her, examination-in-chief, has rendered communication(s) therein, vis-a-vis, hers' making her previous statement, borne in Ex. Further more, the prosecutrix in her testimony, comprised in her, examination-in-chief, has rendered communication(s) therein, vis-a-vis, hers' making her previous statement, borne in Ex. PW-1/A, and, also on hers being declared hostile, given hers, during the course of her examination-in-chief rather failing to identify the accused, in Court, (a) and also hers' rather acquiescing to a suggestion put thereat, to her, by the learned PP concerned, vis-a-vis, hers' appending her thumb impression(s), upon, Ex. PW-1/B (b) wherethrough(s) rather certain incriminatory items, vis-a-vis, the inculpatory occurrence, hence stood recovered, and, upon, the afore items, as, carried in a sealed parcel, and, upon the embossed thereon seals, being ordered to be broken, and, upon theirs being shown, to her in Court, hers' rather admitting qua all the items, as, enclosed there within, hence comprising the onces, embodied in Ex. PW-1/B, (c) and, there onwards hers also admitting qua hers' making a statement, under, Section 164 of Cr.P.C, before the learned Magistrate concerned, and, thereafter hers' also acquiescing, to, a suggestion put thereat to her, by the learned PP, vis-a-vis hers, therein, disclosing the names of accused Rakesh, Pankaj, and, one Lambu, to be the person(s), who, perpetrated sexual intercourse upon her person, and, when the afore factum, is, supported by the best scientific evidence, borne in the apposite SFSL report, comprised in Ex. PW-7/D, (d) and, with the learned defence counsel, while subjecting her to cross-examination, meteing, suggestion to her, vis-a-vis, hers' disclosing names of the persons, who, perpetrated sexual intercourse upon her, and, whereto, she meted an affirmative suggestion, (e) hence filliping an inference qua the defence acquiescing, vis-a-vis, the veracities, of, recitals carried, in, her earlier statement borne in Ex. PW-1/D wherewithin a narration is borne, vis-a-vis, the names of the accused, and, whereto also, as, a natural corollary, the, apposite veracity(ies) is/are acquired , thereupon, the factum, of hers' failing to identify, the, accused in Court, is wholly effaced, and, no benefit therefrom, can be drawn, by the defence. 12. Though the testification recorded by PW-20, has been concluded by this Court, to, negate the effect, of all the afore espousals, addressed by the learned counsel for the accused, and, upon the afore conclusion, standing conjoined, with the report of FSL, embodied in Ex. PA, proven by PW-26 (Dr. Arun Sharma), and, with a perusal of Ex. 12. Though the testification recorded by PW-20, has been concluded by this Court, to, negate the effect, of all the afore espousals, addressed by the learned counsel for the accused, and, upon the afore conclusion, standing conjoined, with the report of FSL, embodied in Ex. PA, proven by PW-26 (Dr. Arun Sharma), and, with a perusal of Ex. PA, making a palpable disclosure, qua the sample parcel received thereat, for, the requisite comparison(s) rather carrying therein narration(s), vis-a-vis, the seals being rather, in, an unbroken condition, and, with the proven conclusions, as, embodied therein, rather unveiling, qua the expert concerned, after making the matching(s), of, blood grouping, of the convicts Rakesh Kumar, and, Shiv Singh, with the vaginal swabs of the prosecutrix, his, making a categorical opinion qua the blood grouping(s) of the afore convicts/accused rather matching with the blood groupings, of, semen, hence occurring in the vaginal swabs of the prosecutrix, (a) thereupon, the effect of the afore pronounced unscathed conclusion(s), as, recorded, in Ex.PW-7/B, proven by PW-26, efficaciously nail the charge, against the accused Rakesh Kumar, and, also against accused Shiv Singh. 13. However, even when there is no firm conclusion against accused Pankaj, (i) nonetheless, the afore extracted conclusion, also rather making an echoing, qua the participation, of persons, other than the afore being not overruleable, and, with the Doctor concerned, who prepared report comprised, in Ex.PW-7/B, also making a testification qua the participation, of persons, other than, the afore being not overruleable, (a) thereupon dehors any firm conclusion, at par with co-accused Rakesh, and, Shiv Singh, being not made in Ex. PW-7/B, vis-a-vis, co-accused Pankaj, thereupon, also no conclusion can be formed, vis-a-vis, the afore convict Pankaj, holding no incriminatory role, in the penal occurrence, (b) conspicuously, when cogent evidence has been adduced vis-a-vis the valid authoring(s) of Ex. PW-20/D, and, of Ex.PW-1/D. 14. In summa, with the best scientific evidence, hence nailing the charge against the accused, thereupon, it has concomitant effects, of it benumbing the effects, if any, of frailty, if any, gripping, the, testification, of, the prosecutrix. 15. PW-20/D, and, of Ex.PW-1/D. 14. In summa, with the best scientific evidence, hence nailing the charge against the accused, thereupon, it has concomitant effects, of it benumbing the effects, if any, of frailty, if any, gripping, the, testification, of, the prosecutrix. 15. A wholesome analysis of the evidence on record, portrays that the appreciation of evidence, as, done by the learned trial Court, not suffering from any perversity and absurdity nor it can be said that the learned trial Court, in recording findings of conviction, has committed any legal misdemeanor, in as much, as, its mis-appreciating the evidence, on record or its omitting to appreciate the relevant and admissible evidence. In aftermath this Court does not deem it fit, and, appropriate that the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court merit any interference. 16. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in these appeal(s), which are accordingly dismissed and the judgment of the learned trial Court is maintained and affirmed. Records of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.