JUDGMENT : G.A. SANAP, J. 1 All these appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 30.09.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha (for short, ‘the learned Judge’) and therefore, the appeals are being disposed of by common judgment. The particulars with regard to the accused numbers, appeal numbers and sentence can be tabulated as follows: Criminal Appeal No. Accused No. Name of accused Sentence 500 of 2011 1 Chandu @ Chandrashekhar S/o. Keshaorao Chambhare Accused Nos. 1 to 8 are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year each for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code. 7 Shankar S/o. Kawduji Tadas 8 Ganesh S/o. Bapurao Dhage 501 of 2011 2 Prashant Ashokrao Satone 507 of 2011 3 Ganesh Kashirao Rade 528 of 2011 6 Pravin Santoshrao Surkar 4 Sunil Vitthalrao Warghane 568 of 2011 5 Khushal S/o. Rambhau Masulkar The accused Nos. 1 to 4, 7 and 8 are also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five (5) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year each for the offence punishable under Section 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’). The accused No.7 is further sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one (1) month for the offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 Background facts: PW-1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the prosecutrix’)is the informant. The case of the prosecution, which can be unfolded from the report lodged by the prosecutrix and other materials, is that on 24.06.2010 she was not feeling well and therefore, she went to Government Hospital Allipur. On that day, the hospital was closed and therefore, in order to come back to her village Pauni, she was waiting near Yeshwant School Allipur for auto-rickshaw. At about 4:00 p.m., accused No. 7 Shankar Tadas came to the said spot with his auto- rickshaw. Four passengers were already sitting in his auto. The prosecutrix boarded the said auto. Accused No. 7 Shankar Tadas did not stop the auto-rickshaw at village Pauni and took the prosecutrix to Shirasgaon. At about 4:00 p.m., accused No. 7 Shankar Tadas came to the said spot with his auto- rickshaw. Four passengers were already sitting in his auto. The prosecutrix boarded the said auto. Accused No. 7 Shankar Tadas did not stop the auto-rickshaw at village Pauni and took the prosecutrix to Shirasgaon. On the bridge, he allowed the remaining four passengers to alight from the auto-rickshaw. Accused No.7 then took the prosecutrix in his auto-rickshaw to Kanchangaon bus-stop. Accused No.4 Sunil Warghane was at Kanchangaon bus-stop with his auto-rickshaw “Monalika”. It is stated that at the said place accused No.7 Shankar Tadas forcibly made the prosecutrix to sit in the said auto-rickshaw of accused No. 4 Sunil Warghane. Accused No. 7 alongwith another accused No. 3 Ganesh Rade and accused No. 4 sat with the prosecutrix. Accused No. 2 Prashant Satone was driving said auto-rickshaw. Accused No.1 Chandu Chambhare and accused No. 8 Ganesh Dhage proceeded ahead of the auto- rickshaw on the motorcycle. They proceeded towards Kanchangaon. The auto-rickshaw followed them. They took the prosecutrix near a nallah situated between village Shirud and Yeranwadi road via Allipur. They instructed the prosecutrix to get down from the auto-rickshaw but she refused. Thereupon, accused No.1 assaulted and dragged her in the nallah. Accused No.1 forcibly removed her clothes and committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. He used condom. It is stated that thereafter, accused No.2 Prashant Satone, accused No.3-Ganesh Rade, accused No.4-Sunil Warghane and accused No.7 Shankar Tadas one after another, by using condom, committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. In the meantime, accused No. 5 Khushal Masulkar came in his auto-rickshaw alongwith accused No. 6 Pravin Surkar. Accused Nos.5 & 6 also committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Thereafter, at about 9:00 p.m., they brought the prosecutrix at Bhagwa Phata in the auto-rickshaw and dropped her there. Then, they fled from the spot. 3 It was a night time. The prosecutrix was alone at Bhagwa Phata bus-stop. During night time there was no transport facility for the prosecutrix to go back to her village. The prosecutrix, therefore, had no alternative but to spend the whole night at the said bus stop. On the next day, i.e. on 25.06.2010, at about 6:00 a.m., she boarded the first bus that was from Mansoli to Wardha and returned back to Pauni. After coming back to her house, she narrated the incident to her mother. The prosecutrix, therefore, had no alternative but to spend the whole night at the said bus stop. On the next day, i.e. on 25.06.2010, at about 6:00 a.m., she boarded the first bus that was from Mansoli to Wardha and returned back to Pauni. After coming back to her house, she narrated the incident to her mother. The prosecutrix and her mother went to the Allipur police station. The prosecutrix lodged the report. API PW-10 Raju Mendhe, on the basis of her report, registered the crime bearing No. 55 of 2010 against the accused persons. 4 API Mendhe, after registration of the FIR, accompanied by the prosecutrix and her mother, went to the spot. He inspected the spot. He found seven condoms filled with semen. He also found one packet of unused condoms and pieces of condom packets. API drew the spot panchanama and he seized the articles in presence of the panchas. After coming back to the police station, he referred the prosecutrix for medical examination to General Hospital, Wardha. He seized the clothes on the person of the prosecutrix. The accused persons were arrested. They were also referred for medical examination. The API sent the requisition to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hinganghat, for recording the statement of the prosecutrix. Learned Magistrate on 16.07.2010 recorded the statement of the prosecutrix. The blood samples and other biological samples of the prosecutrix and accused persons were collected and forwarded to the RFSL, Nagpur. In due course, the API Mendhe received the CA reports and DNA reports. On completion of the investigation, he filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons. 5 Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha framed the charge against the accused persons. The accused persons abjured their guilt. Their defence is of a false implication at the instance of the prosecutrix and the police. The learned Judge, on consideration of the evidence, held the accused persons guilty of the charge and sentenced them as above. The accused persons, being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, have come before this Court by filing their appeals. 6 I have heard the learned Advocates for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record and proceedings. 7 Learned Advocate Mr R.M. Daga advanced the lead arguments. Learned Advocate Mr. M. V. Bute for the other accused persons has adopted his submissions. 6 I have heard the learned Advocates for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record and proceedings. 7 Learned Advocate Mr R.M. Daga advanced the lead arguments. Learned Advocate Mr. M. V. Bute for the other accused persons has adopted his submissions. Learned Advocate Mr R. M. Daga submitted that the prosecutrix and her mother, who were the star witnesses for the prosecution, have not supported the case of the prosecution. They were declared hostile. It is pointed out that the learned Judge relied upon the evidence of the hostile witnesses and held the accused persons guilty. Learned Advocate submitted that the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can be used for a limited purpose of contradiction. Learned Advocate took me through the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, conducted on behalf of the prosecutor, and submitted that some part of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C., reiterated by her in a halfhearted manner, has been made the basis of conviction and sentence. In the submission of the learned Advocate even if that part of the statement is taken at its face value and considered in totality with the other part of her evidence relating to Section 164 statement, it could be said that she has not supported her Section 164 statement. Learned Advocate submitted that, in her cross-examination, she has given a sort of clean cheat to all the accused. It is submitted that the learned Judge has conveniently glossed over this vital part of her evidence and has come to a wrong conclusion. Learned Advocate submitted that the mother of the victim, whose statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was not recorded, has also not supported the case of the prosecution on material aspects. Learned Advocate submitted that the evidence of the medical officer has been used as a corroborative piece of evidence by the learned Judge to the evidence of the prosecutrix. It is submitted that since the prosecutrix has not implicated the accused persons and categorically denied the occurrence of the incident, the evidence of the medical officer could not be said to be a substantive piece of evidence to establish the complicity of the accused persons in the crime. It is submitted that since the prosecutrix has not implicated the accused persons and categorically denied the occurrence of the incident, the evidence of the medical officer could not be said to be a substantive piece of evidence to establish the complicity of the accused persons in the crime. 8 Learned APP Mr Pathan, with the inherent limitations created on account of the halfhearted attempt of the prosecutrix to support the case of the prosecution in its entirety, submitted that the learned Judge was right in holding the appellants guilty of the charge. Learned APP submitted that the evidence of the hostile witnesses cannot be rejected in its entirety. The part of the evidence, which proves the role of the perpetrator if found to be credible, can be used though the witness has turned hostile. Learned APP took me through the evidence of the prosecutrix and pointed out that though in the initial part of her examination-in-chief, she disowned her statement in the FIR, she admitted in her cross-examination conducted on behalf of the prosecutor the entire incident narrated by her before the learned Magistrate at the time of her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement. Learned APP submitted that she has admitted her signature on the said statement. She has also stated that the learned Magistrate did not force her to make the statement. In short, learned APP submitted that the material part of the incident recorded in her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement was reiterated by her in her cross- examination. It is a substantive piece of evidence. Learned APP submitted that therefore, that part of the evidence cannot be eschewed from consideration. Learned APP took me through the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge and pointed out that the other evidence and circumstances considered by the learned Judge to seek corroboration to the testimony of the prosecutrix are consistent with the guilt of the accused persons. 9 It is no doubt true that on the basis of the report of the prosecutrix, the crime of gang rape was registered against eight accused at Allipur Police Station. There was no delay, as such, in lodging the report. The incident, as can be seen from the report, was deplorable. As stated in the report, all the accused persons came together and committed gang rape on the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix, on the date of the incident, was 17 years of age. There was no delay, as such, in lodging the report. The incident, as can be seen from the report, was deplorable. As stated in the report, all the accused persons came together and committed gang rape on the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix, on the date of the incident, was 17 years of age. As the law stood, on the date of the occurrence of the incident, there was no presumption of the guilt of the accused persons akin to the one under Section 29 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 as well as the provision of the Indian Evidence Act. The prosecution was, therefore, duty bound to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The accused persons, being residents of village Allipur, were known to the prosecutrix. Their identity has not been challenged. It needs to be stated that during the pendency of the trial, all accused persons were under trial prisoners. The learned Judge has observed that the demeanor of the mother of the prosecutrix and of the prosecutrix suggested that they were under a pressure. The family members of the accused persons attended the court proceedings. However, the fact remains that neither the prosecutrix nor her mother at any time made grievance before the learned Judge that they were either threatened or pressurized by the family members of the accused persons to depose in favour of the accused persons. Learned Judge was required to consider all these facts and circumstances in totality. 10 It is evident on perusal of the judgment that the learned Judge has relied upon the cross-examination of the prosecutrix conducted by the prosecutor to base the conviction against the accused persons. The prosecutrix did not identify the accused persons before the Court being the perpetrators of the crime. Even though their identity was not in dispute, it was necessary in the backdrop of hostile animus to ask her about the identity of these persons. The prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief resiled from the contents of the FIR. In her examination-in-chief, she has narrated the part of the incident in a halfhearted manner. In her examination-in-chief, she has stated that the report/FIR is incorrect. In her examination-in-chief, her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was shown to her. She has admitted her signature on the said statement. In her examination-in-chief, she has narrated the part of the incident in a halfhearted manner. In her examination-in-chief, she has stated that the report/FIR is incorrect. In her examination-in-chief, her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was shown to her. She has admitted her signature on the said statement. However, in her examination- in-chief, she denied the contents of the statement and therefore, it was not given an exhibit mark. Her signature was marked as ‘Article B’. It is seen that the learned Judge, while granting permission to the public prosecutor to conduct the cross of the prosecutrix, recorded that she has resiled from her report, police statement and the statement recorded before the Magistrate. It is therefore evident that in her examination-in-chief she has disowned the facts recorded in the report, her police statement and the statement recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. In my view, this fact needs to be borne in mind while appreciating the submissions advanced by the advocates for the accused and the learned APP. 11 In the initial part of her cross-examination, the prosecutrix denied almost all the suggestions put to her consistent with the case of the prosecution against the accused persons. She has admitted that when the report of the incident was lodged, her mother accompanied her and as per her narration of the incident, it was scribed by the police. Further part of her cross-examination, is very important. She has admitted that her statement was recorded by the Magistrate. Her mental condition was proper. She has stated that she made a voluntary statement. She has stated that at the time of recording her statement she narrated the incident before the Magistrate. In her further cross-examination, she has reiterated the entire incident with the names of the accused. 12 It is necessary to mention that when the witness turns hostile to the prosecution, it becomes very difficult to bring on record the correct facts. It is trite that a witness is a master of his or her version. Nobody can compel the witness to depose one way or the other. Perusal of relevant cross- examination of the prosecutrix would show that she has vouched for the statement made before the Magistrate. The important question that was required to be addressed by the learned Judge was whether that part of the evidence would form the substantive evidence. Nobody can compel the witness to depose one way or the other. Perusal of relevant cross- examination of the prosecutrix would show that she has vouched for the statement made before the Magistrate. The important question that was required to be addressed by the learned Judge was whether that part of the evidence would form the substantive evidence. It appears on perusal of the cross-examination that since the witness had turned hostile, the prosecutor was apprehensive while framing the questions. A wrong answer at a wrong time in such a situation could have spoiled the entire exercise undertaken by the prosecutor. This must be the apprehension in the mind of the prosecutor. Therefore, the prosecutor did not ask the relevant questions to this witness. The statement was not exhibited. Even if it is assumed that it is not necessary to exhibit the said statement, the substantive evidence must be a positive statement and there should not be a dent to such a positive statement with regard to the involvement of the perpetrators of the crime in any manner. Such evidence brought on record in the cross-examination has to be considered in totality of the evidence of the said witness. It can not be considered in isolation. It seems that the apprehension of the learned APP proved right when he put a suggestion to this witness after reiteration of all the facts by the witness. The witness has denied the suggestion put by the prosecutor. This denial of the witness has spoiled the exercise undertaken that far by the prosecutor. Whether that suggestion was necessary or not could not be the issue at this stage ? It is necessary for the Court is to see the answer to the suggestion. The prosecutor suggested to the witness that the aforesaid incident stated by her in her cross-examination took place with her and therefore, she had stated the same on oath before the Court. The witness has denied this suggestion. In my view, this answer itself would be sufficient to show that even in cross-examination this witness has resiled from this part of her statement as well. She has caused further damage to the prosecution. She has made a voluntary statement and stated that as per the instructions of the police, she made a statement before the Court and it was recorded. She has caused further damage to the prosecution. She has made a voluntary statement and stated that as per the instructions of the police, she made a statement before the Court and it was recorded. It is not out of place to mention that the criminal prosecution is a serious matter. The evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused must be found to be credible and trustworthy. On the basis of unreliable and broken pieces of evidence, the accused cannot be sentenced. She has again stated that the Magistrate correctly recorded her statement as per her say and she put the signature on the said statement. Keeping aside her examination-in-chief, it is to be noted that in her cross-examination itself there are inherent inconsistencies and discrepancies. She was not willing at all to stand by her own report. There could be numerous reasons for the prosecutrix to change her stand. The reason or reasons could not be material. What is material while appreciating the evidence of such a witness is to look at the core of the evidence of such a witness. If the evidence at core is doubtful and dented, then consistent with the principle of criminal jurisprudence the conviction cannot be based on such evidence. The prosecutrix may have reasons to resile from her own statement. It was not within the powers of the Court to compel her to make a particular statement in a particular manner. She was master of her version. She chose not to come before the Court with the first hand account of the incident and narrate before the Court, the ordeal suffered by her at the hands of the perpetrators of the heinous crime. 13 The learned Judge, consistent with his duties, asked one important question to her as to whether the accused persons present before the Court had committed rape on her? The answer given is very interesting. She has stated that they might be. This question was asked to her by the Court in the midst of her cross-examination by the learned APP. She did not tell the truth to the court. She always tried to conceal the correct facts. Her cross-examination has further damaged the case of the prosecution. She has stated that the police taught her about the statement to be made before the Court. She did not tell the truth to the court. She always tried to conceal the correct facts. Her cross-examination has further damaged the case of the prosecution. She has stated that the police taught her about the statement to be made before the Court. She has stated in her cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused No.1 that he did not commit sexual intercourse with her. In the cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused Nos.2, 3, 5 to 8 she has stated that she had never seen these accused persons. The same is the case with accused No.4. Perusal of her evidence would show that she has not even identified these accused persons being the perpetrators of the crime. In her cross-examination, the answers given by her suggest that somehow or the other she wanted to save these accused persons and give them a clean cheat. In my view, the learned Judge was required to consider her evidence in totality. It needs to be stated that on appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecutrix, the learned Judge was expected to record a finding as to the part of the evidence which is found to be credible and trustworthy. The credibility and trustworthiness of the evidence of the witness has to be decided keeping in mind the manner of giving evidence, willingness to suppress or to make a disclosure of all the facts before the Court or to suppress some immaterial facts and to narrate before the Court the material facts. It is evident that the prosecutrix deposed in a topsy turvey manner and tried to come out of Section 164 statement. The learned prosecutor, despite the best possible efforts, could not bring her on track. It seems that the consolation of the prosecutor that the prosecutrix has reiterated the contents of her Section 164 statement and shows the inclination to come back on track was short lived. It is evident that the prosecutrix in the very next breath by giving damaging answer derailed the train of the prosecution. In my opinion, therefore, the learned Judge was not right in placing implicit reliance on such a broken piece of evidence. It is apparent that the prosecutrix did not want to stand by her case. She resiled from her report and even her Section 164 statement. In my opinion, therefore, the learned Judge was not right in placing implicit reliance on such a broken piece of evidence. It is apparent that the prosecutrix did not want to stand by her case. She resiled from her report and even her Section 164 statement. It seems that the prosecutrix, under some advice, tried to reiterate the incident recorded in her statement but it was also not sufficient. At the end of her statement, she denied the involvement of the accused persons. The evidence of the witness, who smartly blows hot and cold from the same pipe, needs minute scrutiny. The great care is required to be taken. I have observed that criminal prosecution is a serious matter. The prosecution is duty bound to prove its case by leading cogent and concrete evidence. Learned Judge, in this case, was not right in placing implicit reliance on the evidence of the prosecutrix, who turned hostile to the prosecution. She backed out from the prosecution. The prosecutor did his best to bring on record true incident. The prosecutor had his limitations. On perusal of her evidence in its entirety, I am satisfied that the efforts of the prosecution did not fructify. 14 There is evidence of the mother of the prosecutrix. The mother of the prosecutrix was not an eyewitness to the incident. The statement made by her before police was on the basis of the narration of the incident to her by the prosecutrix. Learned Judge has considered the circumstance of lodging the report, the presence of the mother with the prosecutrix throughout at the police station as well as at the time of her medical examination as the relevant corroborative circumstances. In my view, the very foundation of the case of the prosecution came down the very moment the prosecutrix resiled from her own statement. The prosecutrix was the star witness for the prosecution. Her evidence was the prime weapon for the prosecution to sustain the charge. The prosecutrix resiled from her original statement. In view of this, the very edifice of the case of the prosecution crumbled like house of cards. In this case, to prove the main charge there is no substantive evidence. 15 The evidence of the medical officer can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence. The prosecutrix resiled from her original statement. In view of this, the very edifice of the case of the prosecution crumbled like house of cards. In this case, to prove the main charge there is no substantive evidence. 15 The evidence of the medical officer can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the medical officer noticed some injuries on the body of the victim suggesting that she was subjected to the incident of the nature stated by her, the same by itself would not be sufficient to take the case of the prosecution forward. The chain of the prosecution’s case is broken the very moment the link in the form of the prosecutrix is detached from this chain. In this backdrop, I conclude that the learned Judge was not right in holding the accused/appellants guilty on the basis of the evidence of the prosecutrix and more particularly, her cross-examination, which was reiteration of part of her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement. 16 Another important piece of evidence considered by the learned Judge to base the conviction of the appellants is in the nature of CA reports and DNA reports. Learned Advocate for the accused persons submitted that there are lacunae and drawbacks in the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has not adduced the link/chain evidence to establish that the samples deposited with the RFSL, Nagpur were tamper-proof. It is also submitted that the prosecution has not examined the CA. The CA reports and DNA reports have been admitted at the time of the evidence of the investigating officer PW-10. It is submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to establish that there has been quality assurance as to the DNA report. The procedure followed while collecting the samples as well as preserving the samples leaves the scope for tampering of the samples. It is submitted that the credibility of the DNA report, in the absence of a chain or a link evidence, has been materially hampered. The medical officer while collecting the samples did not adhere to the protocol. There is a scope to doubt the possibility of contamination or tampering of the samples. The learned Advocate submitted that the learned Judge was therefore not right in placing implicit reliance on the DNA report to convict and sentence the accused persons. The medical officer while collecting the samples did not adhere to the protocol. There is a scope to doubt the possibility of contamination or tampering of the samples. The learned Advocate submitted that the learned Judge was therefore not right in placing implicit reliance on the DNA report to convict and sentence the accused persons. 17 Learned APP submitted that the evidence of the investigating officer and other witnesses is sufficient to prove the precautions taken while collecting the samples and the storage and preservation of the samples. There was no inordinate delay in forwarding the samples to the RFSL, Nagpur. The medical officers, who had collected the samples, were independent witnesses. They had no reason to create false evidence. Learned APP submitted that the examination of the CA is not necessary to prove the contents of the CA report. The CA report or DNA report can be admitted in evidence by taking recourse to Section 293 of the Cr.P.C. Learned APP submitted that the complicity of the accused persons in the crime has been established beyond doubt on the basis of the DNA report. 18 Before proceeding to appreciate the submissions it would be appropriate to consider the law laid down by the Apex Court and considered by this Court in a number of cases on the point of admissibility and credibility of CA and DNA reports. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad has considered almost all the decisions on this point in the case of Nivrutti S/o Nagorao Hange vs. The State of Maharashtra and another, 2024 All MR (Cri.) 3445. It would be appropriate to reproduce para 17 wherein this issue has been dealt with. It is extracted below: 17. Another evidence, upon which, the Prosecution laid emphasis and which weighed heavily with the learned Trial Court to convict the Appellant, is the scientific evidence in the nature of DNA reports. Following Judgments are relied upon by the learned Advocates for the Appellant on this aspect. [I] In Pattu Rajan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, MANU/SC/0439/2019 : 2019 All SCR (Cri.) 1343, it is observed as follows :- “31. Shri Sushil Kumar also argued that a DNA test should have been conducted in order to identify the dead body, and identification merely on the basis of a superimposition test, which is not a tangible piece of evidence, may not be proper. Shri Sushil Kumar also argued that a DNA test should have been conducted in order to identify the dead body, and identification merely on the basis of a superimposition test, which is not a tangible piece of evidence, may not be proper. One cannot lose sight of the fact that DNA evidence is also in the nature of opinion evidence as envisaged in Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. Undoubtedly, an expert giving evidence before the Court plays a crucial role, especially since the entire purpose and object of opinion evidence is to aid the Court in forming its opinion on questions concerning foreign law, science, art, etc., on which the Court might not have the technical expertise to form an opinion on its own. In criminal cases, such questions may pertain to aspects such as ballistics, fingerprint matching, handwriting comparison, and even DNA testing or superimposition techniques, as seen in the instant case. 32. The role of an expert witness rendering opinion evidence before the Court may be explained by referring to the following observations of this Court in Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Limited and Ors., MANU/SC/1641/2009 : (2009) 9 SCC 709 : 16. The law of evidence is designed to ensure that the court considers only that evidence which will enable it to reach a reliable conclusion. The first and foremost requirement for an expert evidence to be admissible is that it is necessary to hear the expert evidence. The test is that the matter is outside the knowledge and experience of the lay person. Thus, there is a need to hear an expert opinion where there is a medical issue to be settled. The scientific question involved is assumed to be not within the court's knowledge. Thus cases where the science involved, is highly specialized and perhaps even esoteric, the central role of an expert cannot be disputed.… Undoubtedly, it is the duty of an expert witness to assist the Court effectively by furnishing it with the relevant report based on his expertise along with his reasons, so that the Court may form its independent judgment by assessing such materials and reasons furnished by the expert for coming to an appropriate conclusion. Be that as it may, it cannot be forgotten that opinion evidence is advisory in nature, and the Court is not bound by the evidence of the experts. Be that as it may, it cannot be forgotten that opinion evidence is advisory in nature, and the Court is not bound by the evidence of the experts. (See The State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram, MANU/SC/0189/1978 : (1979) 2 SCC 158 ; State of H.P. v. Jai Lal and Ors., MANU/SC/0557/1999 : (1999) 7 SCC 280 ; Baso Prasad and Ors. v. State of Bihar, MANU/SC/8723/2006 : (2006) 13 SCC 65; Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd. and Ors. (supra); Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and Ors., MANU/SC/1416/2009 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri.) 299). 33. Like all other opinion evidence, the probative value accorded to DNA evidence also varies from case to case, depending on facts and circumstances and the weight accorded to other evidence on record, whether contrary or corroborative. This is all the more important to remember, given that even though the accuracy of DNA evidence may be increasing with the advancement of science and technology with every passing day, thereby making it more and more reliable, we have not yet reached a juncture where it may be said to be infallible. Thus, it cannot be said that the absence of DNA evidence would lead to an adverse inference against a party, especially in the presence of other cogent and reliable evidence on record in favour of such party”. [II] In Manoj and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, MANU/SC/0711/2022 : 2022 All SCR (Cri.) 1177, it is observed as follows :- “134. During the hearing, an Article published by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata was relied upon. The relevant extracts of the Article are reproduced below: …. ….. ….. ….. …… …. ….. ….. ….. …… …. ….. ….. Collection and Preservation of Evidence If DNA evidence is not properly documented, collected, packaged, and preserved, It will not meet the legal and scientific requirements for admissibility in a court of law. Because extremely small samples of DNA can be used as evidence, greater attention to contamination issues is necessary while locating, collecting, and preserving DNA evidence can be contaminated when DNA from another source gets mixed with DNA relevant to the case. This can happen when someone sneezes or coughs over the evidence or touches his/her mouth, nose, or other part of the face and then touches area that may contain the DNA to be tested. This can happen when someone sneezes or coughs over the evidence or touches his/her mouth, nose, or other part of the face and then touches area that may contain the DNA to be tested. The exhibits having biological specimen, which can establish link among victim(s), suspect(s), scene of crime for solving the case should be Identified, preserved, packed and sent for DNA Profiling. …. ….. ….. ….. …… …. ….. ….. ….. …… 136. The Law Commission of India in its report, observed as follows : DNA evidence involves comparison between genetic material thought to come from the person whose identity is in issue and a sample of genetic material from a known person. If the samples do not 'match', then this will prove a lack of identity between the known person and the person from whom the unknown sample originated. If the samples match, that does not mean the identity is conclusively proved. Rather, an expert will be able to derive from a database of DNA samples, an approximate number reflecting how often a similar DNA "profile" or "fingerprint" is found. It may be, for example, that the relevant profile is found in 1person in every 100,000. This is described as the 'random occurrence ratio' (Phipson1999). Thus, DNA may be more useful for purposes of investigation but not for raising any presumption of identity in a court of law. …. ….. ….. ….. …… …. ….. ….. ….. …… …. ….. ….. ….. …… 141. This Court, therefore, has relied on DNA reports, in the past, where the guilt of an Accused was sought to be established. Notably, the reliance, was to corroborate. This Court highlighted the need to ensure quality in the testing and eliminate the possibility of contamination of evidence; it also held that being an opinion, the probative value of such evidence has to vary from case to case”. [III] In Naveen Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, MANU/SC/1167/2023 : 2023 All SCR (Cri.)1955, it is observed as follows: “18. The issue concerning evidentiary value of DNA report has been considered by this Court in a recent judgment reported in the case of Rahul v. State of Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs and Anr., MANU/SC/1455/2022 : (2023) 1 SCC 83 wherein the following has been held in Paragraphs 36 and 38 as under: 36. The issue concerning evidentiary value of DNA report has been considered by this Court in a recent judgment reported in the case of Rahul v. State of Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs and Anr., MANU/SC/1455/2022 : (2023) 1 SCC 83 wherein the following has been held in Paragraphs 36 and 38 as under: 36. The learned Amicus Curiae has also assailed the forensic evidence i.e. the report regarding the DNA profiling dated 18-4-2012 (Ext. P-23/1) giving incriminating findings. She vehemently submitted that apart from the fact that the collection of the samples sent for examination itself was very doubtful, the said forensic evidence was neither scientifically nor legally proved and could not have been used as a circumstance against the Appellant-Accused. The Court finds substance in the said submissions made by the Amicus Curiae. The DNA evidence is in the nature of opinion evidence as envisaged Under Section 45 and like any other opinion evidence, its probative value varies from case to case. 38. It is true that PW 23 Dr B.K. Mohapatra, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) of CFSL, New Delhi had stepped into the witness box and his report regarding DNA profiling was exhibited as Ext. PW 23/A, however mere exhibiting a document, would not prove its contents. The record shows that all the samples relating to the Accused and relating to the deceased were seized by the investigating officer on 14-2-2012 and 16-2-2012; and they were sent to CFSL for examination on 27-2-2012. During this period, they remained in the malkhana of the police station. Under the circumstances, the possibility of tampering with the samples collected also could not be ruled out. Neither the trial court nor the High Court has examined the underlying basis of the findings in the DNA reports nor have they examined the fact whether the techniques were reliably applied by the expert. In the absence of such evidence on record, all the reports with regard to the DNA profiling become highly vulnerable, more particularly when the collection and sealing of the samples sent for examination were also not free from suspicion. (Emphasis supplied) 19. In the case of Manoj and Ors. v. State of M.P., MANU/SC/0711/2022 : (2023) 2 SCC 353 , it was held that if DNA evidence is not properly documented, collected, packaged, and preserved, it will not meet the legal and scientific requirements for admissibility in a court of law. (Emphasis supplied) 19. In the case of Manoj and Ors. v. State of M.P., MANU/SC/0711/2022 : (2023) 2 SCC 353 , it was held that if DNA evidence is not properly documented, collected, packaged, and preserved, it will not meet the legal and scientific requirements for admissibility in a court of law. Because extremely small samples of DNA can be used as evidence, greater attention to contamination issues is necessary while locating, collecting, and preserving DNA evidence as it can be contaminated when DNA from another source gets mixed with DNA relevant to the case. This can happen even when someone sneezes or coughs over the evidence or touches his/her mouth, nose, or other part of the face and then touches the area that may contain the DNA to be tested. The exhibits having biological specimen, which can establish link among victim(s), suspect(s), scene of crime for solving the case should be identified, preserved, packed, and sent for DNA Profiling. 20. In the case of Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph v. State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/0124/2014 : (2014) 4 SCC 69 , the following has been held in paragraph 18 as under: 18. Deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, is a molecule that encodes the genetic information in all living organisms. DNA genotype can be obtained from any biological material such as bone, blood, semen, saliva, hair, skin, etc. Now, for several years, DNA profile has also shown a tremendous impact on forensic investigation. Generally, when DNA profile of a sample found at the scene of crime matches with the DNA profile of the suspect, it can generally be concluded that both the samples have the same biological origin. DNA profile is valid and reliable, but variance in a particular result depends on the quality control and quality procedure in the laboratory”. (Emphasis supplied) [IV] In Prakash Nishad Vs. State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/0613/2023 : 2023 All SCR (ONLINE) 477, one of the issue for consideration was whether DNA evidence can form the solitary basis in determining the guilt of the Appellant therein and it observed as follows :- “60. We may observe that the Maharashtra Police Manual1, when speaking of the integrity of scientific evidence in Appendix XXIV states - The integrity of exhibits and control samples must be safeguarded from the moment of seizure upto the completion of examination in the laboratory. We may observe that the Maharashtra Police Manual1, when speaking of the integrity of scientific evidence in Appendix XXIV states - The integrity of exhibits and control samples must be safeguarded from the moment of seizure upto the completion of examination in the laboratory. This is best done by immediately packing, sealing and labeling and to prove the continuity of the integrity of the samples, the messenger or bearer will have to testify in Court that what he had received was sealed and delivered in the same condition in the laboratory. The laboratory must certify that they have compared the seals and found them to be correct. Articles should always be kept apart from one another after packing them separately and contact be scrupulously avoided in transport also. 61. In the present case, the delay in sending the samples is unexplained and therefore, the possibility of contamination and the concomitant prospect of diminishment in value cannot be reasonably ruled out. On the need for expedition in ensuring that samples when collected are sent to the concerned laboratory as soon as possible, we may refer to "Guidelines for collection, storage and transportation of Crime Scene DNA samples For Investigating Officers - Central Forensic Science Laboratory Directorate Of Forensic Sciences Services Ministry Of Home Affairs, Govt. of India"2 which in particular reference to blood and semen, irrespective of its form, i.e. liquid or dry (crust/stain or spatter) records the sample so taken "Must be submitted in the laboratory without any delay." 62. The document also lays emphasis on the 'chain of custody' being maintained. Chain of custody implies that right from the time of taking of the sample, to the time its role in the investigation and processes subsequent, is complete, each person handling said piece of evidence must duly be acknowledged in the documentation, so as to ensure that the integrity is uncompromised. It is recommended that a document be duly maintained cataloguing the custody. A chain of custody document in other words is a document, "which should include name or initials of the individual collecting the evidence, each person or entity subsequently having custody of it, dated the items were collected or transferred, agency and case number, victim's or suspect's name and the brief description of the item." [V] In Mukesh and Others Vs. A chain of custody document in other words is a document, "which should include name or initials of the individual collecting the evidence, each person or entity subsequently having custody of it, dated the items were collected or transferred, agency and case number, victim's or suspect's name and the brief description of the item." [V] In Mukesh and Others Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors., MANU/SC/0575/2017 : 2017 All MR (Cri.) 2448 (S.C.), it is observed as follows :- “216 In Pantangi Balarama Venkata Ganesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh, MANU/SC/1306/2009 : (2009) 14 SCC 607 , a two-Judge Bench had explained as to what is DNA in the following manner: 41. Submission of Mr. Sachar that the report of DNA should not be relied upon, cannot be accepted. What is DNA? It means: Deoxyribonucleic acid, which is found in the chromosomes of the cells of living beings is the blueprint of an individual. DNA decides the characteristics of the person such as the colour of the skin, type of hair, nails and so on. Using this genetic fingerprinting, identification of an individual is done like in the traditional method of identifying fingerprints of offenders. The identification is hundred per cent precise, experts opine. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that there is a need of quality control. Precautions are required to be taken to ensure preparation of high molecular weight DNA, complete digestion of the samples with appropriate enzymes, and perfect transfer and hybridization of the blot to obtain distinct bands with appropriate control. (See article of Lalji Singh, Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad in DNA profiling and its applications.) But in this case there is nothing to show that such precautions were not taken”. [VI] In Ananda Vs. The State of Maharashtra, MANU/MH/3781/2024, one of the evidence was in the nature of DNA reports and it is observed as under : “39. The question is, based on the DNA reports, whether the conviction and/or sentence passed by the trial court would be sustainable. We have gone through the impugned judgment. The trial court has relied on the evidence of each and every witness. It also relied on the evidence of the medical officer who collected blood of the appellant for DNA analysis, even in breach of protocol in that regard. We have gone through the impugned judgment. The trial court has relied on the evidence of each and every witness. It also relied on the evidence of the medical officer who collected blood of the appellant for DNA analysis, even in breach of protocol in that regard. The reason assigned for relying on the said evidence is that the said witness is uninterested and independent one. Before appreciating the evidence relating to DNA, we must have a look at the guidelines for collection, storage and transportation of the crime-scene DNA samples. Those have been placed on record by learned counsel for the appellant. Item No.10 therein speaks of maintaining the chain of custody. It describes what chain of custody means. Same reads as under:- 10. Maintaining the chain of custody: • Chain of custody is a process used to maintain and document the chronological history of the evidence. • A `chain of custody’ document should be maintained which should include name or initials of the individual collecting the evidence, each person or entity subsequently having custody of it, dated the items were collected or transferred, agency and case number, victim’s or suspect’s name and the brief description of the item. Those were the guidelines issued by The Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. PW 18 – Vaishali admitted in cross-examination that the C.F.S.L., Chandigarh and Hyderabad are best in India.” 19 It needs to be stated that there is a protocol for selection and preservation of the samples for DNA analysis. The precautions are necessary while collecting and preserving the samples for getting the right results. The possibility of contamination cannot be ruled out considering the nature of the samples. The prosecution is duty bound to adduce the evidence to rule out the possibility of contamination or tampering of the samples in any manner till the samples are finally analyzed. The DNA reports could not be said to be infallible inasmuch as it is an opinion evidence. 20 It needs to be stated at the outset that the prosecution has not examined the CA. The prosecution has not placed on record the plausible reasons for non-examination of such an important witness. The record shows that the learned Judge before admitting the CA reports in evidence did not pass a specific order. 20 It needs to be stated at the outset that the prosecution has not examined the CA. The prosecution has not placed on record the plausible reasons for non-examination of such an important witness. The record shows that the learned Judge before admitting the CA reports in evidence did not pass a specific order. I am conscious of the fact that the report of the Government Scientific expert can be admitted in evidence under Section 293 of the Cr.P.C. In this case, the DNA reports are admitted in evidence by the learned Judge without passing any specific order. Generally, in such a matter, the CA or the DNA analyst has to be examined. The CA must tell before the Court the chain of custody of the samples and the precautions taken to avoid contamination during analysis and upto the completion of the analysis of the samples. This is one important drawback in this case. 21 I have gone through the evidence of the other witnesses to appreciate the submissions made by the learned Advocate that there is a possibility of tampering with the samples and as such, the contamination. It is undoubtedly true that the samples collected during the investigation must be forwarded to the forensic lab without delay. In this case, the panch witness PW-3 Vitthal Surkar, in whose presence the seven condoms had been seized from the spot, has not supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence of the investigating officer shows that they visited the spot on 25.06.2010 itself and in presence of two panchas and also in presence of the prosecutrix seized seven condoms filled with semen. The evidence on record shows that PW-10 forwarded those seven condoms to RFSL, Nagpur on 29.06.2010 vide requisition letter dated 29.06.2010 Exh. 146. The record shows that police constable Bakal No. 1293 carried those samples to RFSL, Nagpur. The prosecution has not examined the constable Anup Kawale, Bakal No. 1293. Exh. 147 is the invoice of the challan issued from the office of RFSL, Nagpur. It shows that the samples had been deposited on 29.06.2010. The record shows that the samples were lying in the police station for three days. The investigating officer PW-10 was required to state the precautions taken to preserve the samples during the period of three days. The prosecution has not examined the Malkhana incharge of the police station. It shows that the samples had been deposited on 29.06.2010. The record shows that the samples were lying in the police station for three days. The investigating officer PW-10 was required to state the precautions taken to preserve the samples during the period of three days. The prosecution has not examined the Malkhana incharge of the police station. Similarly, the malkhana register or the extract of the said register to show the deposit of these samples in the malkhana has not been produced. The investigating officer PW-10 is silent about the custody of the samples during this period of three days. There is no reason put forth by PW-10 for forwarding the samples to RFSL, Nagpur after three days. It has come on record that accused - Shankar Tadas was arrested on 25.06.2010. The remaining accused persons were arrested on 26.06.2010. It is the defence of the accused persons that while they were in police custody, their semen was obtained by the investigating officer in condoms. In the backdrop of this defence, the investigating officer was required to state the reason for not forwarding the seven condoms to RFSL, Nagpur immediately. There is also no evidence as to the custody of the condoms during this period. In the absence of the contemporaneous documentary evidence, there is a scope to doubt the credibility of this evidence. There is a material lacuna to this extent in the case of the prosecution. 22 The blood and other samples of the prosecutrix had been collected by the medical officer PW-8 Dr. Manisha Nasare on 25.06.2010. The samples were handed over by the doctor to LPC Ranjana Zilpe. Ranjana Zilpe is PW-7. The clothes of the prosecutrix were seized on 25.06.2010. As far as the accused persons are concerned, they were examined by the medical officer Dr. Jaychand Moon PW-4 on 28.06.2010. The medical officer had collected blood and other samples of the accused persons on 28.06.2010. As far as the blood samples of the accused persons are concerned, the evidence of the medical officer PW-4 and evidence of P.C. Chandrashekhar Wadhve (PW-5) is contradictory. PW-4 has deposed that after collection of the samples he packed, labeled and sealed the samples and handed over them to the concerned police constable. His evidence shows that on the very same day i.e. on 28.06.2010, the samples had been handed over to police constable Wadhve. PW-4 has deposed that after collection of the samples he packed, labeled and sealed the samples and handed over them to the concerned police constable. His evidence shows that on the very same day i.e. on 28.06.2010, the samples had been handed over to police constable Wadhve. 23 The evidence of PW-5 needs to be considered. He has stated that on 30.06.2010 he collected blood and other sample bottles in a sealed condition from the medical officer. He has stated that he handed over the samples on 30.06.2010 to police head constable Shahane and police head constable seized the same. Exh. 93 to 100 are the seizure panchanamas of the blood and other samples of the eight accused. The panchanama would show that the samples had been seized on 30.06.2010. The evidence of PW-5 would show that from 28.06.2010 to 30.06.2010 the samples were lying in the hospital. PW-4 medical officer has not uttered a word about the custody of the samples and the precautions taken to preserve the samples. The custody of samples for two days has not been explained. This is a relevant circumstance to be borne in mind while appreciating the DNA reports. 24 PW-10 Mendhe has deposed that vide requisition letter dated 03.07.2010 Exh. 150 he forwarded the samples through police constable Omprakash to RFSL, Nagpur. The police constable Omprakash has not been examined. The blood and other samples of the prosecutrix were lying in the police station from 25.06.2010 to 03.07.2010. Similarly, the blood and other samples of the accused persons were lying in the police station from 30.06.2010. As far as these samples are concerned, the investigating officer has not deposed about the custody of the samples. Malkhana incharge has not been examined. The malkhana register has not been produced. It is to be noted that the preservation of the samples in a proper condition is necessary for accurate results. The samples which are collected for DNA analysis are required to be preserved and stored properly. There must be evidence on record as to the custody of the samples before the samples are handed over to the forensic lab. In this case, save and except the bare words of the investigating officer, there is no contemporaneous documentary evidence. 25 The DNA report is at Exh. 168. The analysis of the samples in the lab started on 19.07.2010 and was completed on 02.11.2010. In this case, save and except the bare words of the investigating officer, there is no contemporaneous documentary evidence. 25 The DNA report is at Exh. 168. The analysis of the samples in the lab started on 19.07.2010 and was completed on 02.11.2010. The CA reports of the analysis of the other samples are at Exh. 158 to 167. Those reports are dated31.01.2011. The report of the analysis of the seven condoms is at Exh. 168. Those condoms had been analyzed between 19.07.2010 to 02.11.2010. It is therefore evident that till the final analysis of the samples up to 2.11.2010, the samples were lying in the RFSL, Nagpur. The prosecution has not examined the CA. There is no evidence as to the precautions taken to maintain the purity of the samples during this analysis period of the samples. There is no plausible explanation for non- examination of the CA. It is not out of place to mention that during the analysis period of samples, a chain of custody form is maintained. Such evidence is the most important link in the process of the analysis of the sample. The custody of the samples and the precautions taken to preserve the purity of the samples are very vital facts. These facts must be established by leading evidence. The learned Judge, without examining the CA, has admitted the CA and DNA reports in evidence. No specific order was passed as to why the examination of CA was not necessary to admit these reports in evidence. If the learned Judge had rejected the prayer for exhibiting the CA and DNA reports, the prosecutor would have called the CA to depose before the Court. In my opinion, in the backdrop of the above evidence, the credibility and authenticity of the DNA reports deserve consideration. The DNA report is nothing but an opinion of an expert. It has to be proved like any other fact. There is no presumption as to the credibility or admissibility of CA or DNA reports. It is a settled position in law that mere putting exhibit mark to document does not amount to proof of the contents of the document. In my view, therefore, the CA reports and DNA reports ought to have been properly appreciated and considered. In this case, the prosecutrix has not supported the case of the prosecution. It is a settled position in law that mere putting exhibit mark to document does not amount to proof of the contents of the document. In my view, therefore, the CA reports and DNA reports ought to have been properly appreciated and considered. In this case, the prosecutrix has not supported the case of the prosecution. The DNA report was the only evidence to make good the charge against the accused persons. The prosecution was therefore required to adduce a proper link or a chain of evidence and establish all the above-stated relevant facts. In this case, there is no evidence to establish the proper preservation and custody of the samples. The custody of the samples during the police station has not been established. The investigating officer PW-10 has stated that the malkhana incharge was the custodian of the samples. The malkhana incharge has not been examined. There is no iota of evidence to establish the custody and precautions taken to preserve the samples by the police before the deposit of the samples in the forensic lab. Similarly, there is no evidence of CA to establish custody of the samples and precautions taken to preserve the samples during the period of analysis. In this view of the matter, I conclude that the DNA report loses its authenticity. Based on the DNA report, the accused persons could not have been convicted and sentenced. 26 In view of the above, the settled position in law supports the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for the appellants. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge of gang rape against the accused persons. Similarly, the authenticity of the DNA report has not been proved for want of cogent, concrete and credible evidence. The learned Judge, in my view, was not right in placing implicit reliance on the DNA reports as well as on the evidence of the prosecutrix, who resiled from her version before the Court. In this backdrop, the accused deserves the benefit of the doubt. The appeals, therefore, deserve to be allowed. 27 In view of this, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i] All criminal appeals are allowed. ii] The judgment and order of conviction and sentence of accused persons passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha dated 30.09.2011 is quashed and set aside. The appeals, therefore, deserve to be allowed. 27 In view of this, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i] All criminal appeals are allowed. ii] The judgment and order of conviction and sentence of accused persons passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha dated 30.09.2011 is quashed and set aside. iii] Accused No.1 – Chandu @ Chandrashekhar S/o. Keshaorao Chambhare, accused No. 2 - Prashant Ashokrao Satone, accused No.3 Ganesh Kashirao Rade, accused No. 4 Sunil Vitthalrao Warghane, accused No. 5 Khushal S/o. Rambhau Masulkar, accused No. 6 Pravin Santoshrao Surkar, accused No. 7 Shankar S/o. Kawduji Tadas and accused No. 8 Ganesh S/o. Bapurao Dhage are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code. iv] Accused No.1 – Chandu @ Chandrashekhar S/o. Keshaorao Chambhare, accused No. 2 - Prashant Ashokrao Satone, accused No.3 Ganesh kashirao Rade, accused No. 4 Sunil Vitthalrao Warghane, accused No. 7 Shankar S/o. Kawduji Tadas and accused No. 8 Ganesh S/o. Bapurao Dhage are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. v] Accused No. 7 Shankar S/o. Kawduji Tadas is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. vi] Their bail bonds stand cancelled. 28 All criminal appeals stand disposed of, accordingly. 29. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.