JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. 1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.08.2015 passed by the Special Judge under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh in Special Case No.40 of 2014, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under :- Conviction Sentence Under Section 376D of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 : Imprisonment for life (which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of the appellants’ natural life) and fine of Rs.10,000/- to each of the appellants, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 3-3 months to each of the appellants. 2. Under the impugned judgment in question, appellants were acquitted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Sections 323/34, 506B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) as well as Section 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “Atrocities Act”). 3. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that in the intervening night of 13th-14th May, 2014, prosecutrix (PW-1), who was minor along with her relative and minor friend (PW-2) (who is the victim in another case), Damodar (close relative) and Abhiram Rathiya (PW-3) went to village Dhoram to see a fair. On 14th May, 2014, at about 4.00 AM, when they were returning to their village Rumkera, prosecutrix (PW-1) as well as her friend (PW-2) were caught hold by the appellants near culvert and their relative and friend Damodar and Abhiram Rathiya (PW-3) were beaten and driven away by the appellants. The appellants then dragged the prosecutrix (PW-1) as well as her friend (PW-2) and committed forceful gang-rape on them. They threatened to kill the prosecutrix (PW-1) and her friend (PW-2) by asking them not to disclose the said incident to anyone. Thereafter, on the basis of the report of prosecutrix (PW-1) on 14.05.2014 itself, at about 10.30 AM, a named First Information Report was lodged against the appellants at Police Station Gharghoda vide Ex.P/1. Medical examination of prosecutrix (PW-1) was conducted vide Ex.P/21. Spot map with Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P/4. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, on the basis of the report of prosecutrix (PW-1) on 14.05.2014 itself, at about 10.30 AM, a named First Information Report was lodged against the appellants at Police Station Gharghoda vide Ex.P/1. Medical examination of prosecutrix (PW-1) was conducted vide Ex.P/21. Spot map with Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P/4. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The statement of prosecutrix was recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Caste certificate of prosecutrix was seized vide Ex.P/6. Vaginal slides etc. were seized vide Ex.P/14, which was sent for its chemical examination vide Ex.P/34 and Ex.P/35, but FSL report has not come on record for the reasons best known to the prosecution. Identification of accused was conducted by the Executive Magistrate vide Ex.P/5. Thereafter, appellants were arrested on 15.05.2014 vide Ex.P/22 to Ex.P/25. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants. 4. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 35 documents. Statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which, they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. In defence, one Rohit Sahu has been examined as DW-1 and statement of three witnesses has relied on as D/1, D/2 and D/3. 5. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court, by impugned judgment dated 22.08.2015, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned herein-above, against which, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment. 6. Ms. Indira Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants submits that prosecution has failed to prove that prosecutrix (PW-1) was forcibly gang-raped by the appellant. She further submits that FSL report is not produced in the instant case. There are many discrepancies in identification of the appellants, which has been said to be done by the prosecutrix (PW-1). Prosecutrix (PW-1) had already got the appellants identified in the Police Station. Policemen were also present at the time of alleged identification parade. Prosecutrix (PW-1) did not know the appellants prior to the alleged incident, yet a named report has been lodged against them, which has been done in consultation with the villagers. Prosecutrix (PW-1) had already got the appellants identified in the Police Station. Policemen were also present at the time of alleged identification parade. Prosecutrix (PW-1) did not know the appellants prior to the alleged incident, yet a named report has been lodged against them, which has been done in consultation with the villagers. It is contended that at the time of incident, prosecutrix (PW-1) and witnesses have admitted that while returning from a fair, there was no electricity in their village. There was darkness in the alleged incident site as well as on the road. In such circumstances, identification of appellants is completely doubtful. It is further contended that prosecutrix (PW-1) did not know the appellants before the alleged incident, then it is not clear on what grounds, a named report was lodged on 14.05.2014. It is argued that appellants have been falsely implicated by the relatives of prosecutrix (PW-1), villagers and committee members. There are many discrepancies between Court statements of witnesses and their statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. regarding when and how the appellants were arrested immediately after the alleged incident. It is lastly argued that conviction and sentence of the appellants were not based on reliable and clear evidence, as such, it should be set aside and appellants be acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 7. Per contra, Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 376D of the IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “POCSO Act”), thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. Regarding the age determination of the prosecutrix, Head Master Saluram Bhagat (PW-4) was examined by the prosecution, who has proved the school admission register vide Ex.P/10 as well as mark-sheet vide Ex.P/11 of Govt. Middle School Rumkera and deposed in his evidence that date of birth of prosecutrix (PW-1) was 05.06.1999. 9. Regarding the age determination of the prosecutrix, Head Master Saluram Bhagat (PW-4) was examined by the prosecution, who has proved the school admission register vide Ex.P/10 as well as mark-sheet vide Ex.P/11 of Govt. Middle School Rumkera and deposed in his evidence that date of birth of prosecutrix (PW-1) was 05.06.1999. The trial Court upon appreciation of evidence of Saluram Bhagat, came to conclusion that on the date of incident, prosecutrix was less than 18 years of age. This finding of trial Court regarding age of prosecutrix appears to be a reasonable conclusion on the evidence available on record, which does not call for any interference. 10. Prosecutrix (PW-1) in her Court evidence, while confirming the prosecution case, has deposed that when they were returning from a fair, four appellants had caught hold of them. One of the appellants, Rajendra Kumar Nishad had caught hold of her and taken her to the culvert and rest of the appellants had taken her friend (PW-2) to the field and then, raped her one by one. Three appellants who had caught of her friend (PW-2) later came to her and committed rape with her. At the time of rape, all four appellants cooperated with each other. Thus, prosecutrix (PW-1) has deposed that she was gang-raped by the appellants. Her friend (PW-2) has corroborated the statement of prosecutrix (PW-1). Abhiram Rathiya (PW-3) who is brother of (PW-2) has also corroborated the case of the prosecution case as well as statement of prosecutrix (PW-1). 11. Dr. Sushila Tigga (PW-12) has conducted the medical examination of prosecutrix (PW-1) and proved its report vide Ex.P/21A. She stated that there was sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix (PW-1), but she has not gave a definite opinion with regard to gang-rape. FSL report has not been brought on record. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has basically challenged the conviction and sentence on the point of identity of appellants. The prosecutrix (PW-1), her friend (PW-2) and Abhiram Rathiya (PW-3) in their evidence have admitted the fact that when they were returning from Dhoram fair to the village at about 04.00 AM, there was darkness in the alleged spot. It is noteworthy that all these three witnesses have stated that they did not know the appellants before the date of incident, but a named report was lodged on the same day against them. It is noteworthy that all these three witnesses have stated that they did not know the appellants before the date of incident, but a named report was lodged on the same day against them. It has been mentioned in First Information Report (Ex.P/1) that at the time of incident, appellants were addressing each other by name, due to which, they came to know the names of appellants, but during their Court statements, they were not able to state their names and unable to find out which name of which appellant. In such a situation, identification parade becomes an important proceeding, whose evidentiary value will be important to examine in depth. 13. It is well settled law that the necessity for holding an identification parade can arise only when the accused are not previously known to the witnesses. The whole idea of a TIP is that witnesses who claim to have seen the culprits at the time of occurrence are to identify them from the midst of other persons without any aid or any other source. The test is done to check upon their veracity. (See: Heera & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2007 SC 2425 ). 14. The identification test is not substantive evidence, such tests are meant for the purpose of helping the investigating agency with an assurance that their progress with the investigation into the offence is proceeding on right lines. (See : Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 748 ). 15. Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajesh Alias Sarkari @ Anr. v. State of Haryana, (2021) 1 SCC 118 considering the object of conducting TIP, laid down the principles to be followed for proper conduct of TIP and in para 43 & 44 held as under : “43. The prosecution has submitted that an adverse inference should be drawn against the appellants for refusing to submit themselves to a TIP. Before we deal with the circumstances in which the appellants declined a TIP, it becomes essential to scrutinize the precedent from this Court bearing on the subject. The prosecution has submitted that an adverse inference should be drawn against the appellants for refusing to submit themselves to a TIP. Before we deal with the circumstances in which the appellants declined a TIP, it becomes essential to scrutinize the precedent from this Court bearing on the subject. A line of precedent of this Court has dwelt on the purpose of conducting a TIP, the source of the authority of the investigator to do so, the manner in which these proceedings should be conducted, the weight to be ascribed to identification in the course of a TIP and the circumstances in which an adverse inference can be drawn against the accused who refuses to undergo the process. The principles which have emerged from the precedents of this Court can be summarized as follows: 43.1. The purpose of conducting a TIP is that persons who claim to have seen the offender at the time of the occurrence identify them from amongst the other individuals without tutoring or aid from any source. An identification parade, in other words, tests the memory of the witnesses, in order for the prosecution to determine whether any or all of them can be cited as eye- witness to the crime; 43.2. There is no specific provision either in the CrPC or the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which lends statutory authority to an identification parade. Identification parades belong to the stage of the investigation of crime and there is no provision which compels the investigating agency to hold or confers a right on the accused to claim a TIP. 43.3. Identification parades are governed in that context by the provision of Section 162 of CrPC. 43.4. A TIP should ordinarily be conducted soon after the arrest of the accused, so as to preclude a possibility of the accused being shown to the witnesses before it is held. 43.5. The identification of the accused in court constitutes substantive evidence. 43.6. Facts which establish the identity of the accused person are treated to be relevant under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. 43.7. A TIP may lend corroboration to the identification of the witness in court, if so required. 43.8. As a rule of prudence, the court would, generally speaking, look for corroboration of the witness’ identification of the accused in court, in the form of earlier identification proceedings. 43.7. A TIP may lend corroboration to the identification of the witness in court, if so required. 43.8. As a rule of prudence, the court would, generally speaking, look for corroboration of the witness’ identification of the accused in court, in the form of earlier identification proceedings. The rule of prudence is subject to the exception when the court considers it safe to rely upon the evidence of a particular witness without such, or other corroboration. 43.9. Since a TIP does not constitute substantive evidence, the failure to hold it does not ipso facto make the evidence of identification inadmissible. 43.10. The weight that is attached to such identification is a matter to be determined by the court in the circumstances of that particular case. 43.11. Identification of the accused in a TIP or in court is not essential in every case where guilt is established on the basis of circumstances which lend assurance to the nature and the quality of the evidence. 43.12. The court of fact may, in the context and circumstances of each case, determine whether an adverse inference should be drawn against the accused for refusing to participate in a TIP. However, the court would look for corroborating material of a substantial nature before it enters a finding in regard to the guilt of the accused. 44. These principles have evolved over a period of time and emanate from the following decisions: 1. Matru v. State of U.P. [ (1971) 2 SCC 75 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 391] 2. Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain [ (1973) 2 SCC 406 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 828] 3. Malkhansingh v. State of M.P. [ (2003) 5 SCC 746 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1247] 4. Visveswaran v. State [ (2003) 6 SCC 73 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1270] 5. Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P. [ (2005) 9 SCC 631 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1269] 6. Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) [ (2010) 6 SCC 1 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1385] 7. Ashwani Kumar v. State of Punjab [ (2015) 6 SCC 308 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 171] 8. Mukesh and Ors. Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P. [ (2005) 9 SCC 631 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1269] 6. Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) [ (2010) 6 SCC 1 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1385] 7. Ashwani Kumar v. State of Punjab [ (2015) 6 SCC 308 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 171] 8. Mukesh and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) [ (2017) 6 SCC 1 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 673]” As such, it is quite vivid that the facts which establish the identity of the accused person are treated to be relevant under Section 9 of the Evidence Act.” 16. The best way to test the evidence of the witnesses regarding the identity of the accused is to mix the latter with other persons and to give the witnesses an opportunity of picking them out. Where this procedure is not adopted either by the Police or by the Magistrate who conducted the commitment proceedings and no explanation is forthcoming as to the omission, it is very serious defect both in the investigation and the conduct of the case. (See: (1947) 48 Cri LJ 522 (529) (DB) (Lah) {Amandchand v. The Crown}. 17. The Allahabad High Court in the matter of Anwar & Another v. State, AIR 1961 All 50 it has been held that first rule relates to number of under- trials to be mixed with the suspect to eliminate reasonable possibilities of chance identification and to make results of the identification acceptable. It has been further held one of the rules laid down for testing the observation and memory of identifying witnesses relates to the number of under-trials to be mixed with a suspect in order to eliminate the reasonable possibilities of a chance identification and to make the results of identification acceptable. Further, it has been held that the second rule stresses that the performance of the witnesses in other parades is also relevant in assessing his power of observation. Each suspect should be put up separately for identification mixed with nine or more under-trials. The ratio of 7 : 1 in the case of one or two suspects ipso facto considerably diminishes the value of identification and unless the investigation is absolutely above board, it would not be prudent to place any reliance on such identification. 18. Further, it has been held in Dal Chand & Anr. The ratio of 7 : 1 in the case of one or two suspects ipso facto considerably diminishes the value of identification and unless the investigation is absolutely above board, it would not be prudent to place any reliance on such identification. 18. Further, it has been held in Dal Chand & Anr. v. State, AIR 1953 All 123 that as a safe rule of prudence, a fair proportion of outsiders mixed with the suspects, considering the circumstances of the case should always be insisted upon by every Magistrate who is charged with the duty of conducting identification proceedings. 19. Similarly, in State v. Wahid Bux & Others, AIR 1953 All 314 in identification parades, it is always better to have as large a number of persons mixed up with the accused as possible. If five times the number of the accused persons are mixed with them, it cannot be said that there is any flaw in the identification proceedings. 20. In the matter of Budhsen & Anr. v. State of U.P., 1970 (2) SCC 128 their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down the principles of law where conviction based solely on identification of witnesses by test identification parade and laid down the principles for conducting the TIP and held that the number of persons mixed up with the accused should be reasonably large and their bearing and general appearance should not glaringly dissimilar and held in para 7 as under : “7. Now, facts which establish the identity of an accused person are relevant under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act. As a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is a statement made in court. The evidence of mere identification of the accused person at the trial for the first time is from its very nature inherently of a weak character. The evidence in order to carry conviction should ordinarily clarify as to how and under what circumstances he came to pick out the particular accused person and the details of the part which the accused played in the crime in question with reasonable particularity. The purpose of a prior test identification, therefore, seems to be to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence. The purpose of a prior test identification, therefore, seems to be to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence. It is accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to them, in the form of earlier identification proceeding. There may, however, be exceptions to this general rule, when, for example, the court is impressed by a particular witness, on whose testimony it can safely rely, without such or other corroboration. The identification parades belong to the investigation stage. They are generally held during the course of investigation with the primary object of enabling the witnesses to identify persons concerned in the offence, who were not previously known to them. This serves to satisfy the investigating officers of the bona fides of the prosecution witnesses and also to furnish evidence to corroborate their testimony in court. Identification proceedings in their legal effect amount simply to this : that certain persons are brought to jail or some other place and make statements either express or implied that certain individuals whom they point out are persons whom they recognise as having been concerned in the crime. They do not constitute substantive evidence. These parades are essentially governed by Section 162, Cr.P.C. It is for this reason that the identification parades in this case seem to have been held under the supervision of a Magistrate. Keeping in view the purpose of identification parades the Magistrates holding them are expected to take all possible precautions to eliminate any suspicion of unfairness and to reduce the chance of testimonial error. They must, therefore, take intelligent interest in the proceedings, bearing in mind two considerations : (i) that the life and liberty of an accused may depend on their vigilance and caution and (ii) that justice should be done an the identification. Those proceedings should not make it impossible for the identifiers who, after all, have, as a rule, only fleeting glimpses of the person they are supposed to identify. Those proceedings should not make it impossible for the identifiers who, after all, have, as a rule, only fleeting glimpses of the person they are supposed to identify. Generally speaking, the Magistrate must make a note of every objection raised by an accused at the time of identification and the steps taken by them to ensure fairness to the accused, so that the court which is to judge the value of the identification evidence may take them into consideration in the appreciation of that evidence. The power to identify, it may be kept in view, varies according to the power of observation and memory of the person identifying and each case depends on its own facts, but there are two factors which seems to be of basic importance in the evaluation of identification. The persons required to identify an accused should have bad no, opportunity of seeing him after the commission of the crime and before identification and secondly that no mistakes are made by them or the mistakes made are negligible. The identification to be of value should also be held without much delay. The number of persons mixed up with the accused should be reasonably large and their bearing and general appearance not glaringly dissimilar. The evidence as to identification deserves, therefore, to be subjected to a close and careful scrutiny by the Court. Shri Pratap Singh, Magistrate, who conducted the identification, has appeared at the trial as P.W. 20. The identification memo in respect of Naubat, appellant, is Ex. Ka 20, dated October 21, 1967 and in respect of Budhsen is Ex. Ka 21, dated October 28, 1967.” 21. Recently, in the matter of Gireesan Nair & Others v. State of Kerala, (2023) 1 SCC 180 . Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under :- “33. It is significant to maintain a healthy ratio between suspects and non-suspects during a TIP. If rules to that effect are provided in Prison Manuals or if an appropriate authority has issued guidelines regarding the ratio to be maintained, then such rules/guidelines shall be followed. The officer conducting the TIP is under a compelling obligation to mandatorily maintain the prescribed ratio. If rules to that effect are provided in Prison Manuals or if an appropriate authority has issued guidelines regarding the ratio to be maintained, then such rules/guidelines shall be followed. The officer conducting the TIP is under a compelling obligation to mandatorily maintain the prescribed ratio. While conducting a TIP, it is a sine qua non that the non-suspects should be of the same age-group and should also have similar physical features (size, weight, color, beard, scars, marks, bodily injuries etc.) to that of the suspects. The officer concerned overseeing the TIP should also record such physical features before commencing the TIP proceeding. This gives credibility to the TIP and ensures that the TIP is not just an empty formality (Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 8 SCC 428 and Ravi v. State, (2007) 15 SCC 372).” 22. If we consider the identification parade in light of the above- stated principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is noteworthy that identification parade (Ex.P/5) has been proved by the Executive Magistrate Shashikant Kurre (PW-11). The prosecutrix (PW-1) has confirmed the above-mentioned proceeding in her Court statement. Ramkumar Rathiya and Sahebram Chauhan, witnesses of identification parade have not been examined by the prosecution. A total of 4 appellants have been identified together and only 8 persons have been identified as being included in it. It does not appear that identification of four appellants was conducted separately by the prosecutrix (PW-1). At the time of identification of four appellants, it does not appear that order of persons included with them was changed. There is no signature of the Reader as to who recorded the identification proceeding. It is mentioned that prosecutrix (PW-1) has identified the appellants by touching them. If we consider the instant case in the light of above judicial precedents, at least five/six times more persons should have been included for the TIP of total 4 appellants, which is not reflected in identification Parade Proceeding vide Ex.P/5. 23. The prosecutrix (PW-1) has deposed in her evidence that even at the time of lodging of report, she did not know the names of appellants, then how the named report was lodged, becomes doubtful. She further deposed that at the time of incident, there was darkness on the road and surrounding area. 23. The prosecutrix (PW-1) has deposed in her evidence that even at the time of lodging of report, she did not know the names of appellants, then how the named report was lodged, becomes doubtful. She further deposed that at the time of incident, there was darkness on the road and surrounding area. She also deposed that later, she could not recognize three men who took her near the pond. She did not see the incident happening with her friend (PW-2). She has stated that at the time of lodging of report, Abhiram Rathiya (PW-3) had gone with her to the Police Station. It is further stated that Abhiram Rathiya (PW-3) had informed about the incident and thereafter, she informed the Police about the incident and then, Police had lodged a report. It is clear that Abhiram Rathiya (PW-3) had full cooperation in lodging of the report. Since a named report has been lodged and none of the witnesses previously knew the appellants, in such a situation, a serious doubt arises in the case. 24. The prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated in her evidence that when the policemen took her to Gharghoda Police Station for identification proceeding, the appellants were also there. Thereafter, she brought to the Tehsil office for identification proceeding. Thus, it is clear that even before identification proceeding in Tehsil office, prosecutrix (PW-1) seen the appellants in Police Station Gharghoda. Prosecutrix (PW-1) has also stated that policemen were also present there at the time of identification proceeding. Further, she stated that while lodging the report, she did not mention the names of appellants, but only talked about rape by four people. She has further stated that she cannot state at which place of Tehsil office, identification proceeding was conducted. Thus, statement of prosecutrix (PW-1) makes the identification proceeding completely doubtful. 25. It is noteworthy that at the time of alleged incident, prosecutrix (PW-1) was accompanied by her friend (PW-2) (who is prosecutrix in another case) and their mutual relative Damodar (not examined) and Abhiram Rathiya (PW-3) were present, but no one knew the appellants before the date of incident. There was darkness on the road as well as on the surrounding area. In such a situation, there is serious doubt whether identification of appellants has been conducted fairly. There was darkness on the road as well as on the surrounding area. In such a situation, there is serious doubt whether identification of appellants has been conducted fairly. It is also an important fact that there is a contradiction in the statements of witnesses on the point that when Abhiram Rathiya (PW-3) and Damodar (not examined) ran away under fear and brought back the villagers along with them, they caught hold of the two appellants and the said information was given by the prosecutrix. Thereafter, they were taken before the committee members of Dhoram fair and later, a report was lodged to the Police. The said fact has come in the Police statement of Abhiram Rathiya (PW-3) that when two appellants were caught hold by them, they disclosed their names as also disclosed the names of other two other appellants. There is a lot of contradiction in Court statement and Police statement of prosecutrix (PW-1), her friend (PW-2) and Abhiram Rathiya (PW-3) regarding information given by prosecutrix (PW-1) after the incident. But while going on road, two appellants were caught hold by them and taken in front of committee members of Dhoram fair. It is not clear in the evidence that at the time of incident, appellants were taking each other's names and on that basis, their names were known by prosecutrix (PW-1). The said fact has been mentioned in the First Information Report (Ex.P/1), but the same has not been proved in his Court statement. 26. In the light of above judicial precedents, the question of identity of the appellants is found to be completely doubtful because the prosecutrix (PW-1) had got the opportunity to see the appellants in Police Station even before the identification proceeding. She has informed the presence of policemen during identification parade. She did not know the appellants before the date of incident, but still lodged a named report. According to the prosecutrix (PW-1), information was given to the Police by Abhiram Rathiya (PW-3). According to Abhiram Rathiya (PW-3), appellants had revealed their names before the committee members and then, role of the committee members as well as village sarpanch was also mentioned in lodging of the report. Abhiram Rathiya (PW-3) appears to have played a greater role than the prosecutrix (PW-1) in lodging the First Information Report. According to Abhiram Rathiya (PW-3), appellants had revealed their names before the committee members and then, role of the committee members as well as village sarpanch was also mentioned in lodging of the report. Abhiram Rathiya (PW-3) appears to have played a greater role than the prosecutrix (PW-1) in lodging the First Information Report. The identification parade has been conducted and it does not reflect that order of appellants has been changed to identify them. According to the guidelines for identification parade given by Hon’ble Supreme Court in above-mentioned case laws, sufficient proportion of persons have not been brought together for identification of four appellants. 27. Concludingly, it is held that the identification parade, which has been conducted by the prosecution vide Ex.P/5 is not in accordance with law and, as such, the identity of appellants for authors of the crime have not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, all the appellants are entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. 28. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants herein are entitled for acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.08.2015 is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them under Section 376D of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. All the appellants shall be forthwith set at liberty, unless they are required in connection with any other offence. 29. In the result, the appeal is allowed. 30. Let a certified copy of this judgment along-with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court and the concerned Superintendent of Jail be also supplied with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary action, if any, at the earliest.