JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. In S.T. Case No.411 of 2011, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to RI for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each under section 376 (2) (g) IPC; RI for one year under section 342 IPC and; RI for one year under section 323 IPC - with a default stipulation to undergo RI for one year. 2. Telco P.S. Case No.97 of 2011 was lodged at about 05:30 AM on 26.04.2011 against Raju, Badshah, Sera, Sunny, Kasim and two unknown persons under sections 342, 323 and 376 (2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC). In course of investigation complicity of Tafazul Haque @ Tapa and Ravi Sharma @ Kalia in the occurrence transpired and a charge sheet was laid against all of them. The victim lady (in short, "P") was examined by Dr. Manju Merina Bara who rendered an opinion that "she was subjected to sexual assault". Md. Zahir Khan @ Sunny was arrested in the intervening night of 25/26.04.2011 and the next morning he suffered a disclosure at about 08:30 AM at Barinagar village. He has disclosed the name of other two accused persons and confessed his involvement in committing rape upon "P". At his instance a duppata belonging to "P" was recovered. In course of investigation a Nokia Mobile bearing IMEI No.354169/02055848/7 with SIM No. 7209933425 was recovered from Azad Khan @ Badshah, a nose-pin and a black ladies sandal with broken strap were recovered from Theme Park at 7:30AM on 26.04.2011 and blood-stained cloths of Azad Khan @ Badshah, Nazir Khan @ Raju and Id. Zamir were seized and sealed in presence of the witnesses on 27.04.2011. On 29.04.2011 the accused persons were put on Test Identification Parade (in short, TIP) and they were identified by "P" and Sk. Sabir Alam as perpetrators of the crime. On 05.05.2011 blood sample of "P" was taken and on 26.05.2011 the accused persons gave their blood samples for DNA test. By an order dated 13.03.2012 charges under sections 323, 342 and 376 (2) (g) IPC were framed against the appellants which they have denied and claimed trial. During the trial the prosecution has examined eight witnesses; Sk. Imran PW-2 and Sk. Sabir Ali PW-3 are closely related to "P"; Diwa Kant Jha PW-5 and Md. Nizammuddin PW-7 are seizure witnesses; Md. During the trial the prosecution has examined eight witnesses; Sk. Imran PW-2 and Sk. Sabir Ali PW-3 are closely related to "P"; Diwa Kant Jha PW-5 and Md. Nizammuddin PW-7 are seizure witnesses; Md. Rauf Khan PW-4 is a neighbour of PW-2 and; PW-8 is the Investigating Officer. 3. On evaluating the materials on record, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that the victim lady has described the traumatic physical sexual assault upon her in a graphic manner and correctly identified the accused persons in TIP and in the dock. The learned Judge has further held that testimony of the victim lady is corroborated on all material parts by the evidence of PW-3; other prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story; the medical evidence conclusively establishes commission of rape upon the victim lady and, therefore, the prosecution has proved the charge of gang-rape against the accused persons. 4. The testimony of the prosecutrix in a prosecution under section 376 IPC is of pivotal importance and it is statement of the prosecutrix which may alone form the basis for conviction of an accused for the offence of rape, if testimony of the victim girl is of an unimpeachable character and inspires confidence of the Court. The explanation to section 375 IPC has prompted the Courts to hold that injury on the external or internal part of the victim or absence of spermatozoa are not the clinching and conclusive indicators to believe or not to believe the evidence of the prosecutrix. In State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary, 2018 SCC Online SC 2256 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there is no rule of law or practice that evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be relied upon without corroboration. It has been observed that: "if the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity and the 'probabilities factor' does not render it unworthy of credence, as a general rule, there is no reason to insist on corroboration except from medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming". But at the same time a word of caution can be found in many decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be accepted as gospel truth in every case. But at the same time a word of caution can be found in many decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be accepted as gospel truth in every case. In "Tameezuddin v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 15 SCC 566 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: "it is true that in a case of rape the evidence of the prosecutrix must be given predominant consideration but to hold that this evidence has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic, would be doing violence to the very principles which govern the appreciation of evidence in a criminal matter". In yet another decision, "Raja v. State of Karnataka, (2016) 10 SCC 506 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "34. This Court in Raju, while reiterating that the evidence of the prosecutrix in cases of rape, molestation and other physical outrages is to be construed to be that of an injured witness so much so that no corroboration is necessary, ruled that an accused must also be protected against the possibility of false implication. It was underlined that the testimony of the victim in such cases, though commands great weight but the same, cannot necessarily be universally and mechanically accepted to be free in all circumstances from embellishment and exaggeration. It was ruled that the presumption of absence of consent of the victim, where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved as contemplated in section 114-A of the Evidence Act, was extremely restricted in its application compared to the sweep and ambit of the presumption under Sections 113-A and 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act. It was exposited that insofar as the allegation of rape is concerned, the evidence of the prosecutrix must be examined as that of an injured witness whose presence at the spot is probable but it can never be presumed that her statement should always without exception, be taken as gospel truth. The essence of this verdict which has stood the test of time proclaims that though generally the testimony of a victim of rape or non-consensual physical assault ought to be accepted as true and unblemished, it would still be subject to judicial scrutiny lest a casual, 'routine and automatic acceptance thereof results in unwarranted conviction of the persons charged.” 5. PW-6, Dr. PW-6, Dr. Manju Merina Sara has examined the victim on 26.04.2011 at 13:45 PM at MGM Medical College, Jamshedpur and found abrasion on dorsum of right wrist of the size "1 inch x 1 inch", caused within 24 hours. Another abrasion of the size of “1 inch x 1 inch" was found on left knee and that was also caused within 24 hours. PW-6 has observed 4-5 linear abrasion on right side of her right thigh stretching to about “4 inch to 5 inch"; no injury to vulva, vagina and perineum and; old hymen tear. The vaginal swab was taken and smear was sent for examining presence of spermatozoa and for the age estimation X-ray was taken. The report by Deptt. of Pathology and Micro-biology, MGM Medical College, Jamshedpur shows that spermatozoa were found in the supplied vaginal smear. The doctor has rendered the following opinion: (i) It seems that rape has taken place. (ii) There is mark of injury present over the body of subject. (iii) The presence of spermatozoa found in vaginal smear (iv) Age of the subject according to above radiological finding is about 16 to 17 years. 6. In her cross-examination she has stated that she did not find blood or any injury on the private parts of "P". 7. "P" has deposed in the Court that she was married to Sk. Sabir Ali about one year back. On the fateful day she had gone for a hike on the nearby hilltop with her husband. At the hilltop when two persons came near and started inquiring about them, she along with her husband started coming down. In the meantime the strangers were joined by two others and thereafter three more persons came there. They surrounded them and when her husband asked them what they want they said "we want to rape your wife". "P" has further stated that she was begging to them but they did not spare her and one by one four persons sexually ravished her. At that time three persons were engaged in restraining her husband. In the Court she has identified the accused persons by face and pointed to three of the appellants who amongst the accused persons had caught hold of her husband. PW-2 is the maternal uncle of Sk. Sabir Ali. At that time three persons were engaged in restraining her husband. In the Court she has identified the accused persons by face and pointed to three of the appellants who amongst the accused persons had caught hold of her husband. PW-2 is the maternal uncle of Sk. Sabir Ali. At about 21:00 - 21.30 PM when he came back home from Bistupur his son told him that his nephew was assaulted by some persons and his neighbors told him that "P" has suffered sexual assault at the hands of seven boys. While he was confirming this from "P" and his nephew in the meantime the police arrived in the village. PW-3, Sk. Sabir Ali has stated that the accused persons have committed gang-rape upon his wife-three of them caught hold of him while other four have committed rape. He has identified the accused persons and the seized articles in TIP. PW-4 is a neighbor of PW-2. He has stated that the accused persons confessed their involvement in gang rape before the villagers. He has claimed that he can identify the accused persons by face. PW-5 and PW-7 are the seizure witnesses. PW-5 has also claimed to identify the accused persons by face. He has stated that few cloths were seized from the house of the accused persons and in his cross-examination he has affirmed that seizure memo was prepared on the spot. PW-7 has stated that one sandal and one nose-pin were found at Theme Park, Sari Nagar on 26.04.2011 and a Nokia Mobile was seized on 26.04.2011 from Azad Khan @ Badshah He has claimed that he can identify the seized articles if produced before him. 8. A lot has been said about marriage of "P" and the time of occurrence. The learned counsels for the appellants would submit that the victim lady has failed to say when and where she was married and who read the nikahnama. A copy of nikahnama was not produced during the trial and on the top of it all PW-3 has also given contradictory statements regarding his marriage with' “P”. The learned counsels have submitted that the purpose of visit of PW-3 along with "P" at Jamshedpur has not been established whether PW-3 came to visit his maternal uncle or came there in search or work. The learned counsels have submitted that the purpose of visit of PW-3 along with "P" at Jamshedpur has not been established whether PW-3 came to visit his maternal uncle or came there in search or work. It is further submitted that both "P" and PW-3 did not appear sure about their relationship with PW-2 because in cross-examination at different places they have given different relationships of PW-2 and PW-3. 9. The case of the prosecution is that "P" was married to PW-3 about one year back. They came to Jamshedpur to spend some time with PW-2 who is maternal uncle of PW-3. In the afternoon of 25.04.2011 "P" along with her husband had gone to the nearby hilltop. There they were apprehended by the appellants who at first started quizzing them and then brought them near Theme Park. Four of them, Md. Zamir @ Shera, Azad Khan @ Badshah, Zahir Khan @ Sunny and Nazir Khan @ Raju ravished "P" while the other three caught hold of PW-3. They took away Nokia Mobile belonging to PW-3 and duppata of "P". When they were released by the appellants "P" lost her nose-pin and the sandal on way to the village. They informed the villagers and the police about the occurrence and Md. Zahir Khan who was attested the same night has disclosed involvement of the appellants in gang rape. 10. In a prosecution under section 376 IPC it is immaterial whether the victim lady was married or unmarried-age of the victim is or course a relevant factor for constituting the offence. The questions put to "P" during her cross-examination would indicate that she was put to several indecent questions during her cross-examination and some were intended to insult and annoy her. It was a failure on the part of the learned trial Judge not to intervene and stop the defence counsel from putting indecent, scandalous and annoying questions to "P" (refer, sections 151 and 152 of the Evidence Act). A lengthy and extensive cross-examination of a witness to extract confusing answers from a witness is a usual tactics of the defence counsel during the trial, but howsoever inconsistent statement of a witness may be a truthful witness would remain firm to the core of the case. A lengthy and extensive cross-examination of a witness to extract confusing answers from a witness is a usual tactics of the defence counsel during the trial, but howsoever inconsistent statement of a witness may be a truthful witness would remain firm to the core of the case. The relationship between PW-2 and PW-3 and the purpose of visit of PW-3 at Jamshedpur are all irrelevant considerations for deciding whether the appellants have committed gang-rape upon "P". The so-called discrepancies in the time of occurrence whether it started at 19:00 PM or 19:30 PM or 20:00 PM whether the fardbeyan was given by "P" or recorded as translated by PW-3 have been stretched by the prosecution out of proportions and a suggestion by the defence that the appellants have been implicated in this case at the instance of the villagers would remain in the realm of speculation because nothing on their false implication on the ground of any enemity with the villagers has been shown by the appellants so as to throw any doubt on their involvement in the occurrence. From the materials on record it appears that "P" had gone with PW-3 over hilltop and they were found in objectionable position which was seen by two of the appellants. The other appellants came there and they started harassing them. They decided to take benefit of the situation and sexually ravished "P". Soon after the assault the villagers were informed about the incident and "P" along with her husband had gone to the police station and gave her fardbeyan at about 23:30 PM the same night. One of the appellants was apprehended the same night and he disclosed the name of other accused persons. PW-5 has deposed in the Court that the accused persons confessed their involvement in the crime before the villagers and a First Information Report was lodged against five known and two unknown persons. A doubt may arise why the name of only five appellants were disclosed in the FIR and whether two of them have been falsely implicated in this case, but whatever may be the reason the identity of all the appellants as perpetrators of the crime has been established during the trial. They were identified by "P" and her husband in TIP and in the Court as well. They were identified by "P" and her husband in TIP and in the Court as well. The Magistrate who has conducted TIP was not examined during the trial and, therefore, the evidence of TIP cannot be used against the appellants. Nevertheless, the fact remains that soon after the occurrence one of the predators was arrested and he disclosed name of the others and in the dock they were identified by "P" and her husband. In "Re Sangiah J", AIR 1948 Mad 113, Rajamannar, J. has observed that the question whether a witness has or has not identified the accused during the investigation is not one which is in itself relevant at the trial. The actual evidence regarding identification is that which was given by the witness in the Court. 11. In "State of Maharashtra Versus Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, (1990) 1 SCC 550 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "16. …………..She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to Illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence. 12. Stand alone, the identification of the appellants by "P' in the Court is more than sufficient to establish the identity of the persons who have sexually ravished her. The evidence tendered by “P" who is a victim of sexual crime must be accepted true unless something so improbable or inherently impossible is shown in her testimony - there is none. During the trial 'P" has stated that she did not know the accused persons though she has heard their names during their talk and in the Court she has identified the appellants by their face. The identification of an accused by his face is a well known method to establish identity of the accused. A victim of sexual assault would never forget the terror and trauma she has undergone and the incident would leave a permanent scar on her mind. Over the time a witness may forget many things but identification of the accused by a victim of sexual assault by face as the person who has ravished her can be one piece of evidence which does not call for corroboration. 13. In "S. v. Sunil Kumar and Another, (2015) 8 SCC 478 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that: “12. ………..By very nature of the offence the close proximity with the offender would have certainly afforded sufficient time to imprint upon her mind the identity of the offender". In "Malkhansingh and others V. State of M.P., (2003) 5 SCC 478 the prosecutrix was threatened and intimidated and the accused persons raped her one by one; she was not knowing the accused persons. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that: “16. The prosecutrix had sufficient opportunity to observe the features of the appellants who raped her one after the other. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that: “16. The prosecutrix had sufficient opportunity to observe the features of the appellants who raped her one after the other. Before the rape was committed, she was threatened and intimidated by the appellants. After the rape was committed, she was again threatened and intimidated by them. All this must have taken time. This is not a case where the identifying witness had only a fleeting glimpse of the appellants on a dark night. She also had a reason to remember their faces as they had committed a heinous offence and put her to shame. She had, therefore, abundant opportunity to notice their features. In fact on account of her traumatic and tragic experience, the faces of the appellants must have got imprinted in her memory and there was no chance of her making a mistake about their identity ". 14. "P" has seen the appellants closely. The very nature of the crime is such that she had sufficient time to observe their distinctive features. The fear, anxiety and trauma which she had undergone during the entire episode must have left an everlasting imprint in her mind. The minor inconsistency in testimony of PW-1 and PW-3 is quite understandable. They were surrounded by seven persons, they were threatened by them and after few of them committed rape upon "P" they were released. In the testimony of any two witness there can be some variation because it is impossible to recapitulate all the events that had happened on the fateful day and, therefore, while scrutinizing evidence of a witness it has to be remembered that there may be some omission or embellishment or exaggeration in his testimony on account of loss of memory, forgetfulness, lapse of time etc. PW-1 and PW-3 are truthful witnesses in as much as on their own they have admitted that they had no past acquaintances with the appellants and they had seen them for the first time on the day of occurrence. There is no exaggeration in their testimony and the, minor inconsistency and omission which have been over-stretched by the defense are but natural. Normally, it is not a tendency of the witnesses to falsely depose in the Court and the Courts would believe their testimony unless something substantial on the basis of past enmity or some other reason is shown to the Court. Normally, it is not a tendency of the witnesses to falsely depose in the Court and the Courts would believe their testimony unless something substantial on the basis of past enmity or some other reason is shown to the Court. It is also well-accepted that a women would not falsely implicate someone for the offence of rape because the incident brings stigma to the women. The investigating officer had also no animus against the appellants and there is no reason to think that PW-1 and PW-3 have falsely implicated the appellants in this case. 15. In "Bhagwan Jagannath Markad v. State of Maharashtra, (2016) 10 SCC 537 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observations regarding discrepancies in the testimony of a witness: "No true witness can escape from giving some discrepant details and only when discrepancies are so incompatible as to affect the credibility of the version of a witness, the court may reject the evidence. Want of independent witnesses or unusual behaviour of witnesses of a crime is not enough to reject evidence. It is well known that principle 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" has no general acceptability. A witness may be untruthful in some aspects but the other part of the evidence may be worthy of acceptance. Discrepancies may arise due to error of observations, loss of memory due to lapse of time, mental disposition………" 16. A challenge to FSL report has been made on two grounds; firstly, FSL report was not proved according to the law of evidence and secondly, it is not reliable. 17. The observations and conclusions in the report of Forensic Science Laboratory are as under: “Observations: 1. DNA profile generated from the source of Exhibit marked-B/1(source: Blood of accused Jahir Khan alias Sani on a gauze piece), Exhibit marked –B/2 (source: Blood of accused Md. Jamir alias Shera on a gauze piece), Exhibit marked-B/3(source: Blood of accused Azad alias Badsah on a gauze piece), Exhibit marked –B/4 (source: Blood of accused Nazir alias Raju on a gauze piece), Exhibit marked-B/5 (source: Blood of accused Tafzul Haque alias Thapa on a gauze piece), Exhibit marked- B/6 (source: Blood of accused Kasim on a gauze piece), and Exhibit marked-B/1 (source: Blood of accused Ravi Sharma alias Kalia on a gauze piece) belong to seven different human males. 2. 2. DNA profile generated from the source of Exhibit marked-A/2 (source: Blood of victim Salifa Khatoon on a gauze piece), Exhibit marked-C/1b (source: Blood stained shirt cuttings of accused Jahir Khan alias Shani), Exhibit marked-C/2b (source: Blood stained shirt cuttings of accused Jamir alias Shera), and Exhibit marked-C/4b (source: Blood stained T-Shirt cuttings of accused Nazir alias Raju) belong to one and the same human female i.e. Salifa Khatoon. 3. DNA profile generated from the source Exhibit marked–A/1 (source: Swab of glass slides containing vaginal swab of Victim Salifa Khatoon) was partial (incomplete). Conclusion: 1. The blood on the source of Exhibit marked-B/1 (source: Blood of accused Jahir Khan alias Sani on a gauze piece), Exhibit marked-B/2 (source: Blood of accused Md. Jamir alias Shera on a gauze piece), Exhibit marked-B/3 (source: Blood of accused Azad alias Badsah on a gauze piece), Exhibit marked-B/4 (source: Blood of accused Nazir alias Raju on a gauze piece), Exhibit marked-B/5 (source: Blood of accused Tafzul Haque alias Thapa on a gauze piece), Exhibit marked-B/6 (source: Blood of accused Kasim on a gauze piece), and Exhibit marked-B/7, (source: Blood of accused Ravi Sharma alias Kalia on a gauze piece) has been contributed by seven different human males. 2. The blood on the source of Exhibit marked-C/1b(source: Blood stained shirt cuttings of accused Jahir Khan alias Shani), Exhibit marked-C/2b (source: Blood stained shirt cuttings of accused Jamir alias Shera) and Exhibit marked-C/4b (source: Blood stained T-Shirt cuttings of accused Nazir alias Raju) has been contributed by one and the same human female i.e. the source of Exhibit marked-A/2 (source: Blood of victim Salifa Khatoon on a gauze piece). 3. Report on DNA profile of the source of exhibit marked-A/1 (source: Swab of glass slides containing vaginal swab of victim Salifa Khatoon) is inconclusive as DNA profile generated was not sufficient enough to opine ". 18. After incorporation of section 53-A in the Code of Criminal Procedure it became necessary for the prosecution to go in for DNA test and this has been followed by the prosecution in this case. What is commonly known as DNA-Deoxyribonucleic Acid - is used to identify individual human beings by DNA profiling. Lord Taylor, CJ, has described the process of DNA profiling in "R v. Deen" (reference, The Times 10th January 1994, transcript 2151 December 1993). What is commonly known as DNA-Deoxyribonucleic Acid - is used to identify individual human beings by DNA profiling. Lord Taylor, CJ, has described the process of DNA profiling in "R v. Deen" (reference, The Times 10th January 1994, transcript 2151 December 1993). The learned Chief Justice has explained that when the crime stain DNA and the sample DNA from the suspect are run in separate tracks through the gel, the resultant autoradiography can be compared. The two DNA profiles can then be said either to match or not. In the present case, the non-examination of expert who has prepared FSL report dated 03.07.2010 is not fatal for the prosecution. Under section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is not necessary that in every case the expert must himself prove the report. Under sub-section 2 to section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the Court is of the opinion that the expert should be called for evidence the person who has prepared the report or any other person authorized on his behalf who is well conversant with the procedures may be examined by the prosecution [(refer Rajesh Kumar and anr Vs. State Government of NCT of Delhi, (2008) 4 SCC 493 ]. The process and procedure adopted for DNA profiling is not under challenge and no missing link has been shown to suggest that there were chances of fabricating blood stains on the seized clothes of the appellants with blood or "P". In "Kamti Devi (Smt) and Anr Vs. Poshi Ram, (2001) 5 SCC 493, the Supreme Court has held that DNA profiling is scientifically accurate. 19. The FSL report was received in the Court and it has been marked as Ext-8 during the trial. No challenge to the FSL report and the blood samples taken from the appellants has been thrown during the trial. The blood sample of "P" and trace of blood found on the cloths of Md. Zahir @ Shera, Zahir Khan @ Sunny, Nazir Khan @ Raju have been found of the same origin. On applicability of section 376 (2) (g) IPC against the Tafazul Haque, Ravi Sharma @ Kalia and Md. The blood sample of "P" and trace of blood found on the cloths of Md. Zahir @ Shera, Zahir Khan @ Sunny, Nazir Khan @ Raju have been found of the same origin. On applicability of section 376 (2) (g) IPC against the Tafazul Haque, Ravi Sharma @ Kalia and Md. Kasim all that is required to record is that Explanation-I to section 376(2)(g) IPC says that the prosecution has to adduce evidence to indicate that more than one accused have acted in concert and even if rape has been committed by one all the accused shall be guilty irrespective of their individual overt act(s) and it is not necessary for the prosecution to adduce evidence of a completed act of rape by each one of the accused. The DNA profile of vaginal swab of "P" was inconclusive but the DNA profile generated from the blood of "P" and blood stains on Ext-C/1b, C/2b and C/4b have matched. About the DNA profiling the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in "Patangi Balarama Venkata Ganesh Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2009) 14 SCC 607 that; "the identification is hundred per cent precise, experts opine". PW- 7 has rendered a categorical opinion that rape has been committed upon "P" and she has found several external injuries on 'P". The scientific evidence produced by the prosecution against the appellants is a clinching piece of evidence which would confirm their active participation in gang-rape. Three of the appellants who did not indulge in the actual act were actively assisting the others by restraining PW-3 from intervening and therefore they are also liable to be convicted under section 376 (2) (g) IPC. 20. In the aforesaid facts, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has proved the charge under section 376 (2) (g) IPC against the appellants and, accordingly, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 883 of 2013, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 891 of 2013 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 897 of 2013 devoid of any merit are dismissed. 21. I.A. No. 1425 of 2019 stands disposed of. 22. Let lower Court records be sent to the Court concerned forthwith. Appeal dismissed.