The necessity of maintaining the highest standard in the collection of samples and quality control for DNA evidence to be accepted as conclusive proof.

Manish Pitale, J.

1. By this common judgment, four appeals filed by four accused persons are being disposed of. All the four accused persons have been convicted by the impugned judgment and order passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara in Special Criminal (Child) Case No.14 of 2015 for offences under Section 363 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 376(D) read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 16.02.2015, the complainant (hereinafter referred to as “the prosecutrix”) had gone to see Hangama Dance Programme at about 8.30 p.m. in the village when her friend one Atul Meshram phoned her and asked her to meet him. The prosecutrix asked the said Atul Meshram to come behind her house. The said Atul Meshram came on motorcycle after about 10 minutes along with two friends but he did not stop where the prosecutrix was waiting and went ahead. Thereupon, the prosecutrix called him on phone and he asked her to come near the river side. The said Atul Meshram came alone at the said place to meet the prosecutrix, when the four boys came towards them. At this point, the said Atul Meshram ran away leaving the prosecutrix alone and she ran towards the river side on Dhusala road.

3. The said four boys i.e. the appellants herein (accused Nos. 1 to 4) intimidated the prosecutrix. Accused No.1 Atul Hatwar (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 363 of 2016) lifted the prosecutrix and closed her mouth with his hand and took her to the neighbouring field. Accused No.2 Jitendra Gabhane (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 2016), accused no.3 Ishwar Tikapache (appellant in Criminal Appeal No.205 of 2016 and accused No.4 Vijay Nagfase (appellant in Criminal Appeal No.206 of 2016) accompanied the said accused No.1. Accused No.1 Atul Hatwar first committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and thereafter other three accused one by one committed the said act forcibly on the prosecutrix. Thereafter, accused no.1 Atul Hatwar brought the prosecutrix near the canal and left her there, asking her to meet him the next morning.

4. The prosecutrix returned home and narrated the incident to her sister Nilima Satpute (PW1). The sister and brother-in-law of the prosecutrix took her to the Police Station and on the basis of her oral report, first information report (FIR) was registered at 12.30 a.m. on 17.02.2015 at Police Station Andhalgaon against the aforesaid four accused persons under Sections 363 and 376(D) of the IPC, as also under Sections 3(1) (xi), 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and further under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

5. Upon registration of the FIR, the investigating officer Anand Bhoite, the Sub Divisional Police Officer, as the investigating officer started the investigation. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination on 17.02.2015 at 12.30 p.m. and she was examined by Dr. Chanchal Khobragade (PW-11). In the medical examination report at Exh.85, the age of the prosecutrix was recorded as 16 years. It was recorded that there was absence of injury on the hymen and that no injuries were seen on the genitals. During the medical examination the blood sample, pubic hair, nail clippings and vaginal swab were collected by Dr. Yogesh Nakade (PW-9).

6. These samples were forwarded to the Police Station Andhalgaon and they were seized along with the clothes of the prosecutrix on 17.02.2015 at 2.20 p.m. in the Police Station. The said samples and clothes were sent for chemical analysis to the Forensic Laboratory.

7. The investigating officer (PW12) arrested the four accused persons on 17.02.2015. The accused persons executed memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, pursuant to