PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

(1) Appellant Rahul and Amit have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC; Section 324/34 IPC; Sections 392/397/34 IPC and Section 506/34 IPC. Appellant Rahul is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

(2) Co-accused Mohan Lal who was charged for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and Ashok Kumar who was charged for the offence punishable under Section 212 IPC have been acquitted. Pertaining to co-accused Mohan Lal, notwithstanding the fact that a mobile phone belonging to the victim was recovered from his conscious possession, benefit has been given to him of not having knowledge that the mobile phone was stolen property. Qua Ashok Kumar from whose house Rahul was arrested and a pant belonging to Rahul was recovered, has been given the benefit of not knowing that Rahul was an offender at law.

(3) The trial of two juvenile co-accused named Suraj and Neeraj was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board as the two were minor. The two juveniles pleaded guilty and appropriate orders have been passed against them by the Juvenile Justice Board.

(4) In the instant appeals we are concerned with the fate of Rahul and Amit. Rahul has been convicted as the main offender in view of the testimony of the prosecutrix Kumari P as also the fact that spermatozoa was detected in her vaginal swab by Dr.P.C.Dixit PW-11 as per his report Ex.PW-11/A and that DNA fingerprints of the blood sample of Rahul matched the DNA fingerprints from the source of Ex.C i.e. the sanitary pad used by Kumari P soon after she was sexually assaulted. Though of a weak incriminating nature, a knife Ex.P-1 got recovered by Rahul pursuant to his disclosure statement has been opined to be the weapon of offence with which an incised injury was caused on the left hand (palm) of Kumari P.

(5) Qua appellant Amit the sole incriminating evidence is the testimony of Kumari P as per whom the appellant was a co-partner with Rahul in the commission of the crime.

(6) Vide order on sentence dated 17.1.2005 the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine in sum of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year pertaining to the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(g) IPC and to undergo RI for a period of 7 years and pay fine in sum of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 392/397/34 IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 506/34 IPC they have been punished to undergo RI for a period of 2 years and pay fine in sum of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo SI for 2 months. Same is the punishment inflicted for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, Rahul has been sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and pay a fine in sum of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 1 month simple imprisonment. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. We understand the same to mean that except for the sentence of life imprisonment, other sentences shall run concurrently. Case sent for trial and sought to be proved by the prosecution was that Kumari P a student of 4th year at the Maulana Azad Medical College had collected the admit card for the ensuing exams which were to be held on 18.11.2002 and around afternoon time on 15.11.2002 was walking towards Shaheed Bhagat Singh Bus Terminal to take a public transport to go to her house and on the way had reached Khooni Darwaja. Rahul and Amit accosted her. Having a knife in his hand, Rahul commanded her to keep silent and enter inside the structure called Khooni Darwaja. Out of fear Kumari P obeyed their command as her initial hesitation was met with a threat by Rahul placing the knife on her neck. As she entered inside Khooni Darwaja 2 juvenile co-accused Neeraj and Suraj were found by her inside Khooni Darwaja. At the asking of Rah