35 matched with the fingerprint of Neha. PW-17 Satyanarayan Patel had photographed the crime scene, including the spots where prints were collected, which corroborated beyond any doubt, that the appellants were present at the crime scene. 63. It was argued that a crucial circumstance that has to be considered is that appellants Rahul @ Govind and Manoj were also injured. PW-30 R.S. Makwana, ASI who was posted at Annapurna PS stated that the appellant No. 2 Rahul @ Govind’s leg was wounded. This was also informed to T.I. Gaurishankar Chadar, who wrote dehatinalisi (Ex. P103); Crime no. 377/11 under Sections 294, 307, 34 IPC was registered. PW-26 Mukesh Bhachawat deposed that on 19.06.2011 Constable Dinesh of Annapurana PS brought accused Rahul; he found an injury on his right toe, which had a charring firearm wound. The statement of the IO was that on the basis of information received from Rahul, a shoe (size 44) for the left leg was recovered in the presence of witnesses from the nearby RTO Office. Both the shoes which were seized were brown coloured with three holes and seized within the jurisdiction of PS Annapurna. One shoe had a gunshot mark and the other shoe belonged to Rahul. From the statement of the medical officer, the right toe of right leg of Rahul @ Govind had a gunshot injury and the recovered right shoe had a gunshot hole. Rahul’s medical report supported the fact that he had sustained one gunshot injury on the toe of his right leg. 64. It is argued that the DNA reports established that the blood stains found on shoes and clothes of accused, matched the body fluid of the deceased. The DNA report, coupled with deposition of PW-35 established that body fluid of deceased Megha was found on Rahul’s articles (Ex. F4, F5); body fluid of deceased Ashlesha was found on Manoj’s articles (Ex. G1, G3); and Neha’s sandal (Ex. H2) had traces of deceased Megha’s body fluids.