Judgment Rajendra Saxena, J.-The State of Rajasthan has preferred D .B. Criminal Appeal No. 314/1981 against Judgment dated 28-2-81, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Alwar, acquitted accused respondents Satya Narain, Tribhuvan alias Kullar, and Nathu for offences under Sections 302 and 460, IPC, but convicted the accused for offence under Section 380, IPC and sentenced each one of them to undergo seven years’ RI and a fine of Rs. 300/-in default, to further undergo RI for three months. The accused appellants, who are respondents in the State-appeal, have challenged their conviction and sentence for offence under Section 380, IPC, in their aforesaid appeals. 2. Since these appeals arise out of a common Judgment , those are being disposed of together by this Judgment . 3. Now factual matrix of the case. Babulal Mahajan (PW15) resided and carried on business including that of money lending by getting the ornaments of debtors pledged with him, in Bas Kripal Nagar (Kishangarh). His son Mam Chand’s wife had suffered an attack of paralysis, therefore, Babulal along with Mamchand had taken her to Jaipur for treatment sometime in September, 1979. His mother Smt. Kistoori aged about 60 years & grand-daughter Sunita Bai aged 12 years were staying in the house situated in Bas Kripal Nagar. It is alleged that on the night intervening 17th and 18th September. 1979, some unknown persons committed lurking house trespass in the said house, ransacked gold and silver ornaments and currency notes and also committed murders of Smt. Kistoori and Kumari Sunita by strangulating them. It is the case of prosecution that next day at about 10.30-11 a.m., Kirori and Shankerlal informed PW 11 Gangasharan Sarpanch that the doors of Babulal’ s house were lying open, that Smt. Kistoori and Kumari Sunita were lying dead and that the articles in the said house were also lying scattered. Thereupon, Gangasharan went to the house of Babulal, where by that time Hajarilal and Madanlal had also assembled there. He noticed that Babulal’s house was ransacked, articles therein were lying scattered and Smt. Kistoori and Kumari Sunita were lying dead. 4. Gangasharan (PW 11) reached the police station Kishangarh, which is situated at a distance of 2 kms from the place of occurrence, at about 12.30 p.m. and submitted a written report (Ex. P. 28), whereupon Ramavtar (PW17) ASI, the then incharge of the police station drew the formal FIR (Ex. 4. Gangasharan (PW 11) reached the police station Kishangarh, which is situated at a distance of 2 kms from the place of occurrence, at about 12.30 p.m. and submitted a written report (Ex. P. 28), whereupon Ramavtar (PW17) ASI, the then incharge of the police station drew the formal FIR (Ex. P.9) and registered a case for the offence under Section 302, IPC. Ram Avtar rushed to the spot, prepared site plan (Ex.P.30), collected blood like fluid, which was scattered on the pucca floor inside the house in a bottle and seized and sealed the same vide memo (Ex.P.3 1). He also lifted blood smeared soil from the places, where the dead bodies of Smt. Kistoori and Kumari Sunita were lying, as also control sample of earth, vide seizure memos Ex.P.33 & Ex.P.32 respectively. He also seized a blood stained jute rope lying near the cot, whereon the dead body of Kumari Sunita was lying, vide seizure memo Ex.P.34. He prepared inquest reports Exs.P.43 & P.44 of the dead bodies 5. Dr. G.P. Pathak (PW4) conducted medicolegal autopsy of the dead bodies of Smt. Kistoori and Kumari Sunita and prepared post mortem reports Ex. P. 1 & 2 respectively. The doctor opined that their deaths had occurred due to asphyxia on account of strangulation of their necks. 6. After post mortem examination, the blood stained dhoti and blouse of Smt. Kistoori and blood stained underwear and frock of Kumari Sunita were seized and sealed by Ram Avtar vide memoes Exs.P. 35 & P.36 respectively. 7. It is further the case of the prosecution that on a telephonic message, Babulal (PW 15) alongwith his son Mamchand (PW 14) came from Jaipur to Bas Kripalnagar in the evening of 18-9-1979. The dead bodies were cremated on 19-9-1979. Thereafter Babulal submitted a list of stolen properties Ex.P.45 giving details of various gold and silver ornaments and currency notes and cash amounting to Rs. 6773/-. 8. It is also the case of prosecution that Ram Avtar (PW 17) ASI had found chance prints on some articles lying in Babulal’s house. A radiogram message was sent by the Additional SP Kishangarh to the Superintendent of Police Alwar and thereupon Madanlal Bhargava (PW9), Incharge M.O.B. C.I.D. SP Office, Alwar reached the place of occurrence in the morning of 19-9-79. A radiogram message was sent by the Additional SP Kishangarh to the Superintendent of Police Alwar and thereupon Madanlal Bhargava (PW9), Incharge M.O.B. C.I.D. SP Office, Alwar reached the place of occurrence in the morning of 19-9-79. In presence of Ram Avtar ASI (PW 17), he detected chance prints on the inner surface of lid of a dibba, steel glass, steel katori, on the broken mirrors of a box type vanity case (Shringardan) and nickel polished dibba of Zalim lotion. Those chance prints were developed by Madanlal (PW9) and those articles were seized and sealed vide seizure memo Ex. P. 9. 9. Later on the investigation was handed over to Gopal Singh (PW8) SHO PS Tijara as the then SHO PS Kishangarh was on 2 1-9-79, Gopal Singh arrested accused Tribhuvan, Nathu and Satya Narain vide arrest memoes Exs. P. 79 to P.81 On 21-9-1979 accused Satya Narain volunteered information Ex.P.82 and in pursuance thereof , on the same day he got recovered gold and silver ornaments from a room of his residential house concealed underneath fodder (Toora) in presence of motbirs Madanlal (PW 12) and Hajarilal (not produced), which were seized and sealed vide memo Ex.P.39 by Gopal Singh (PW 18). On the same day, accused Satyanarain also got recovered currency notes worth Rs. 3740/-lying wrapped in a gunny bag from his bed room situated upstairs in his house, which were seized and sealed vide seizure memo Ex.P.40. On 22-9-1979 accused Tribhuvan in pursuance of his voluntary information Ex.P.84 got recovered certain gold and silver ornaments and currency notes worth Rs. 1000/-from his residential house, which were lying wrapped in a gunny bag underneath a cot. Those were seized and sealed vide recovery memo Ex.P.42. On 22-9-1979 accused Nathu also volunteered information Ex.P.83 and in pursuance thereof , he got recovered some gold and silver ornaments and currency notes worth Rs. 1000/-from the fodder lying under a thatched root situated in his ‘nobra’, which were seized and sealed vide recovery memo Ex.P.41. 10. Therecovered gold and silver ornaments were correctly identified by Smt. Kamla (PW6) daughter of Smt. Kistoori (deceased), Harish Narain (PW 13), Mamchand (PW 14) and Babulal (PW 15). 1000/-from the fodder lying under a thatched root situated in his ‘nobra’, which were seized and sealed vide recovery memo Ex.P.41. 10. Therecovered gold and silver ornaments were correctly identified by Smt. Kamla (PW6) daughter of Smt. Kistoori (deceased), Harish Narain (PW 13), Mamchand (PW 14) and Babulal (PW 15). It is further the case of prosecution that Manohari Harijan (PW7) and Bihari Chamar (PW8) correctly identified one silver anklet(Kari) (Article 37), while Behari Chamar (PW8) correctly identified a pair of silver anklet (Kari) (Article 38) and pair of silver ‘chhelkara’ (Article 39) on 10-10-1979 during test parade conducted by Judicial Magistrate Heeralal Kardam (PW5), which they had pledged to Babulal. 11. It is alleged that on 25-9-1979, specimen finger prints of accused Satyanarain, Tribhuvan and Nathu were taken by Ram Avtar ASI (PW17), their fingerprint slips were prepared in presence of Jagdish Maihotra (PW2O) Dy. S.P. and that those were sent to the Superintendent of Police, Alwar along with the sealed packet of articles containing chance prints to the Director, Finger Print Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur for examination and comparison. Ajit Krishna, Director Finger Print Bureau (PW 16) vide his report Ex.P.46 opined that the chance prints found inside the lid of dibba (Article 40) tallied with specimen prints of right thumb, right middle finger, right ring finger of accused Tribhuvan; that chance prints detected on the steel glass (Article 41) tallied with specimen prints of right thumb and right ring finger of accused Nathu, while chance prints found on the mirror of ‘Shringardan’ (Article 43) tallied with specimen prints of right middle finger of Satya Narain and one chance print found on ‘Zalim lotion’ dibba (Article 44) tallied with specimen print of right ring finger of Satyanarain. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted challan against accused persons in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Alwar. 10.12. Theaccused were charged for offences under Sections 302, 460 & 380, IPC. They denied their indictment. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses. The accused persons pleaded ignorance, denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and asserted that in the early hours of 19-9-1979 they were taken to the police station Kishangarh Bas, where their finger prints were forcibly taken by the police on those articles. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses. The accused persons pleaded ignorance, denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and asserted that in the early hours of 19-9-1979 they were taken to the police station Kishangarh Bas, where their finger prints were forcibly taken by the police on those articles. They also asserted that they neither volunteered any information nor got recovered any gold and silver ornaments and currency notes and that the places of the alleged recoveries of ornaments and currency notes were not in their exclusive possession because other members of their family also reside therein. They claimed that they have been falsely roped in this case due to animosity. However, they did not adduce any evidence in defence. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge found them guilty for offence under Section 380, IPC. He, however, acquitted them for offence under Section 302, IPC, read with Section 460, IPC. Hence these appeals. 113. We have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Advocates for the complainant and the accused persons at length and carefully perused the record of the lower Court in extenso. 114. Mr. R.S. Agrawal, the learned Public Prosecutor and Shri P.C. Jain, the learned Counsel for the complainant submit that the learned trial Court has believed the prosecution version that the accused persons were seen near the house of Babulal in the night of 17-9-1979, that the house of Babulal was ransacked, that Smt. Kistoori and Kumari Sunita were murdered and that the cause of their death was strangulation. The chance prints which were found on Articles 40, 41, 43 and 44 tallied with specimen finger prints of the respective accused persons and that the stolen gold and silver ornaments and the currency notes, which were correctly identified by Babulal and other prosecution witnesses were recovered at the instance of the respective accused persons still then, the learned trial Judge has acquitted them for offences under Sections 302 and 460, IPC, ignoring provisions of Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act and thus committed a grave illegality. They have contended that the facts of the case Hukam Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, A1R1977 SC 1063 , 1977 CriLJ639 , (1977 )2 SCC99 relied on by the learned trial Judge are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the case at hand. They have contended that the facts of the case Hukam Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, A1R1977 SC 1063 , 1977 CriLJ639 , (1977 )2 SCC99 relied on by the learned trial Judge are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the case at hand. According to them, the accused respondents have admittedly not claimed that the recovered gold and silver ornaments and the currency notes belonged to them, and that they have also failed to give any explanation as to how they came in possession of the said stolen property and in such circumstances, by the aid of presumptive evidence, it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused respondents were the persons, who had committed lurking house trespass on the fateful night, committed murders of Smt. Kistoori and Kumari Sunita and also dishonestly committed theft of the gold and silver ornaments and the currency notes, etc. 115. On theother hand, the learned Counsel for the accused persons have vigorously contended that from the prosecution evidence, it is well spelt out that the accused persons were rounded up by the police and detained in the police station Kishangarh Bas on 18-9-1979, that their finger prints were procured by deceitful means and under-duress on certain articles. They have also asserted that in this case, material link of evidence is missing to prove that the sealed packets of chance prints on various articles were kept in safe custody from 19-9-79 till 8-10-1979 all they were received in the Rajasthan Finger Print Bureau. According to them there is not a fringe of evidence to show/establish that the seals on the packet of those articles had remained in tact and were not tampered till it reached the Rajasthan Finger Print Bureau on 10-10-79. In such circumstances, the report (Ex.P.46) of finger prints becomes meaningless and the same does not incriminate the accused persons with the crime. They have pointed out that the accused persons are inhabitants of Bas Kripalnagar and their houses are situated near the house of Babulal and as such, their presence at the ‘chabutra’ of Jai Narain Master or near the temple street was natural and this fact is not at all an incriminating circumstance against them. They have pointed out that the accused persons are inhabitants of Bas Kripalnagar and their houses are situated near the house of Babulal and as such, their presence at the ‘chabutra’ of Jai Narain Master or near the temple street was natural and this fact is not at all an incriminating circumstance against them. They have asserted that the prosecution evidence regarding the alleged recoveries is tainted and highly suspicious which cannot be relied upon and that the learned trial Judge has committed an illegality in convicting the accused-appellants for offence under Section 380, IPC. 16. We have bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made before us. The homicidal deaths of Smt. Kistoori and Kumari Sunita are not in dispute and this fact has been also well proved by Dr. G.P. Pathak (PW4), who conducted the post mortem examination and prepared post mortem reports (Exs. P. 1 and P.2, respectively). The doctor found certain superficial and simple injuries on the persons of Smt. Kistoori and Kumari Sunita in the manner enumerated in their respective post mortem examination reports (Exs. P. 1 & P.2). He has categorically deposed that in his opinion, the cause of the deaths was asphyxia due to strangulation of the neck. However, no ligature marks or finger prints on the neck were detected by the doctor. 17. Now, we propose to briefly scan the prosecution evidence recorded in this case. PW1 Savitri aged 80 years, deposed that she used to go with Smt. Kistoori to the temple daily, that on the day of the incident, at about 1 p.m., she went to the house of Smt. Kistoori but there was no response; thereupon she informed Han and Mussadi about the same and went to her house. This witness therefore, does not render any help to the prosecution. 18. PW2 Gomti Bai Vaish aged 55 years, stated that she had seen the accused persons, Nathu, Sattu and Kullar (alias Tribhu van) sitting on the ‘chabutra’ of the house of Jainarain Master, that they bid her saying ‘Ram-Ram’, that when she enquired about their identity, they gave out their names. She stated that she knew all the accused persons previously and that on the next day, she came to know that some body had murdered Kistoori and her grand-daughter, Kumari Sunita. She deposed that she was examined after about 11 days of the incident. She stated that she knew all the accused persons previously and that on the next day, she came to know that some body had murdered Kistoori and her grand-daughter, Kumari Sunita. She deposed that she was examined after about 11 days of the incident. She denied the suggestion that she had not disclosed the fact of seeing the accused persons on the night. However, in her police statement recorded on 1-10-79 (Ex. P. 1) at portion A to B, she stated that she had not disclosed about the said fact to any other person and that when the police interrogated her, she had disclosed those facts. She stated that the distance between ‘chabutra’ of Jainarain and the house of Smt. Kistoori was about 20-30 paces. 19. PW 19 Kishan Singh, the then SHO PS Kishangarh Bas, who recorded police statement of Smt. Gomati Bai (Ex. D. 1) has not assigned any reason about the delay in examining her. When Smt. Gomati Bai knew the accused persons previously, and when the accused persons had bid her saying ‘Ram-Ram’, there was no occasion for her asking about their identity and for the accused persons to blurt out their names to her. In our considered opinion, Smt. Gomati Bai is not a reliable witness. 20. Mool Chand (PW3) deposed that on the night preceding to the incident he was going from his house to his agricultural field and that when he came near the lane which leads to the temple, he had seen accused Satya Narain, Kullar alias Tribhuvan and Nathu coming from jungle side and going towards the house of Babulal at about 9.30-10 p.m. and that on the next day morning at about 10-11 a.m. he came to know about murders of Smt. Kistoori and Kumari Sunita. In his cross-examination, he stated that when the police came to Babulal’s house, he neither presented himself before the investigating officer nor informed anybody about the incident and that he was examined after 6-7 days of the arrest of accused persons: His police statement has not been exhibited. However, the learned trial Judge after looking into the case diary found that this witness was interrogated by the Investigating officer on 19-9-1979. However, the learned trial Judge after looking into the case diary found that this witness was interrogated by the Investigating officer on 19-9-1979. This witness, in his cross-examination stated that on that night, ‘Kirtan’ was going on in the temple and that many people were going to the temple and coming therefrom, and that accused persons had met him near the temple lane. Even if the statement of this witness is taken to be true on its face value, still then the presence of the accused persons near the temple was natural and it is not at all an incriminating circumstance against them. 21. Hiralal Kardam (PW5) the then Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh Bas deposed that on 10-10-79 he had conducted the test parades of various articles alleged to have been recovered at the instance of the accused persons. He has proved the test identification memoes (Exs. P.3 to P.8). He has admitted that since similar items were not available, therefore, no articles were mixed/mingled with some ornaments enumerated in the memo of test identification during the test parade. The accused persons have not claimed that recovered ornaments, currency notes belonged to them. They have also not disputed that those articles did not belong to Babulal. In such circumstances, this irregularity committed by the Judicial Magistrate during the test parade in respect of some of the recovered ornaments is not fatal to the prosecution. We have peeped into statement of this witness extensively and in our opinion, by and large, the identification parade of the articles alleged to have been recovered at the instance of the accused persons docs not suffer from any material irregularity or illegality. 22. Smt. Kamla (PW6) is the daughter of Smt. Kistoori (deceased). She stated that on the ill-fated day, she was living at her in-laws’ house in Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh), that on 19-9-1979 she received a telegram from her brother Mahadev intimating about the incident and that thereupon she immediately proceeded and reached Bas Kripalnagar on 20-9-79 at about 4 p.m. and at that time, she learnt that her mother and niece had been murdered and that the accused persons had been arrested. In her cross examination, she reiterated that when she reached her house in Bas Kripal Nagar, her father and brothers had informed her that all the three accused persons had been arrested by the police. In her cross examination, she reiterated that when she reached her house in Bas Kripal Nagar, her father and brothers had informed her that all the three accused persons had been arrested by the police. It may be mentioned here that as per testimony of PW 18 Gopal Singh SHO, he had arrested accused persons Tribhuvan, Nathu and Satya Narain on 2 1-9-1979 vide arrest memoes Exs.P.79, P.80 and P.81 respectively. On the other hand, PW 12 Madanlal Mahajan has deposed that the police had called all the three accused persons at the police station in the night of 19-9-1979 and that he had seen them in the lock-up on 20-9-79. As mentioned earlier, all the accused-persons in their plea recorded under Section 313, CrPC have stoutly asserted that they were called by the police from their respective houses in the early hours of 19-9-79 at the police station, where their finger prints were taken on the broken mirror of Shringardan, box of ‘Zalim lotion’, lid of ‘dibba’, steel glass and ‘katori’ under threat and duress. Therefore, the prosecution evidence in respect of the date of alleged arrest of the accused persons is inconsistent, contradictionary and highly suspicious. It appears that the accused persons were apprehended and kept in police lock up much earlier than they were actually shown arrested vide their respective arrest memoes. 23. Smt. Kamla (PW6) has identified various ornaments marked Articles 1 to 36 during the test parade as also in the Court. She has proved her signatures on the identification parade memes Exs.P.3 to P.8. She has further stated that three gold rings belonged to her and that on one of those rings her name ‘Kamla’ had been inscribed. Nothing has been elicited in her cross-examination to discredit her testimony. She is, therefore, a reliable witness. 24. Manohari Harijan (PW7) has deposed that he had pledged a pair of silver an klets (Karies)(Article 37) with Babulal (PW 15) and that he had correctly identified those before the Magistrate during identification parade. His testimony has remained unshaken. Similarly Behari Chamar (PW8) has stated that he had pawned a pair of silver anklets (Karis) (Article 38) and a pair of ‘chhelkara’ (Article 39) for Rs. 700/-to Babulal (PW 15) and that he had correctly identified the same before the Judicial Magistrate during identification parade. He has also identified his signatures on identification memo (Ex.P.8). Similarly Behari Chamar (PW8) has stated that he had pawned a pair of silver anklets (Karis) (Article 38) and a pair of ‘chhelkara’ (Article 39) for Rs. 700/-to Babulal (PW 15) and that he had correctly identified the same before the Judicial Magistrate during identification parade. He has also identified his signatures on identification memo (Ex.P.8). Both these witnesses are trustworthy and have been rightly relied upon by the trial Judge. 25. Madanlal Bhargava (PW9) was the then Incharge M.O.B. CID, SP office, Alwar. He deposed that on 18-9-79 at about 12.20 p.m. on receipt of a radiogram message from the Additional Superintendent of Police, Kishangarh Bas, he proceeded for Bas Kripalnagar along with constable Radheyshyam and reached there next day at about 7.30 a.m. that he inspected the site along with Ram Avtar ASI (PW17) and found that the house of Babulal was ransacked, where various articles were lying scattered, that out of those articles on the lid of iron ‘dibba’ (Article 40), steel glass (Article 41), steel Katori (Article 42), pieces of broken mirror (Article 43) of the ‘Shringardan’ and nickel plated ‘dibbi’ of ‘Zalimlotion’ (Article 44), he detected some chance prints and, that, he developed those chance prints by the aid of sprinkling grey powder. He further deposed that Ram Avtar ASI (PW 17) prepared memo (Ex.P.9) in this behalf under his supervision, that he placed all those articles inside the ‘shringardan’ (vanity case) and wrapped and sealed that packet in the presence of motbirs. He stated that a specimen seal impression was also placed inside that packet. He deposed that he had handed over the said sealed packet to Radheyshyam (constable), and that later on, those articles were sent to the Finger Print Bureau. In his cross-examination, he admitted on that day that he had directly proceeded for Alwar from the place of occurrence and that he did not go to the police station. The prosecution however, has neither cared to examine Radheyshyam (constable) nor adduced any evidence to show as to where and under whose custody, the said packet containing chance prints was kept from 19-9-79 till 8-10-79 when the same is alleged to have been sent by the Superintendent of Police, Alwar to the Finger Print Bureau. The prosecution however, has neither cared to examine Radheyshyam (constable) nor adduced any evidence to show as to where and under whose custody, the said packet containing chance prints was kept from 19-9-79 till 8-10-79 when the same is alleged to have been sent by the Superintendent of Police, Alwar to the Finger Print Bureau. The prosecution has also neither examined person concerned to prove SP Alwar’s letter No. MOB/79/1276/ D/-8-10-79, which finds mention in the report dated 8-11-79 Ex.P.46 issued by Ajit Krishan (PW 16), Director Finger Print Bureau nor the carrier of that packet, nor any malkhana entry. It is curious to note that in the report (Ex.P.46) there is no mention that a sealed packet containing aforesaid articles was received by the Rajasthan Finger Print Bureau, Jaipur nor there is any detail of the seal impression nor the fact that the seal of the packet tallied with specimen seal impression. Even Ajit Krishan (PW16) in his statement has not uttered a single word on this score. 9.26. Ram Avtar (PW 17) stated that on 19-9-79 Madanlal Bhargava (PW9) had detected and developed chance prints on Articles 40, 41,42 and 43, that he had prepared memo (Ex.P.9) and seized and sealed those articles. He has not stated that the sealed packet containing those articles was taken away by Madanlal (PW9) or his constable Radheyshyam. He has also not stated that he had brought that sealed packet at the police station and kept the same in the mallthana. The prosecution has also not filed any entry of the mallthana register of the police station nor examined the. incharge of the malkhana nor any person to prove that the said packet remained in his safe custody and that the seals thereof remained in tact and were not tampered with till that packet was received in the office of the Finger Print Bureau. Ram Avtar (PW 17) has refuted the suggestion that he had sent for a new lid of ‘dibba’ (Article 40) and got finger print impression of Tribhuvan thereon or that he produced a new dibba of ‘Zalim Lotion’ from the market on 18-9-79 and got his fingerprints thereon the intervening night of 18 and 19-9-79. He has also denied the suggestion that on 18-9-79 he had procured a steel glass and katori and got finger/thumb impressions of Nathu (accused) at the police station. He has also denied the suggestion that on 18-9-79 he had procured a steel glass and katori and got finger/thumb impressions of Nathu (accused) at the police station. He has also denied the suggestion that he had called three persons (accused) on 18 and 19-9-79 and employing third degree methods got their finger prints on those articles. 27. Thus the prosecution evidence is quite vague, incomplete, inconsistent, contradictory and unreliable and the same lacks credence. The prosecution has, therefore, miserably failed to prove that chance prints were found on Articles 40 to 43. that these were lifted from the place of occurrence, that the Articles 40 to 43 were duly placed in ‘shringardan’ (Article 45) and packet thereof was duly sealed and that those seals remained in tact and were not tampered with from 19-9-79 till the said packet was received by the Rajasthan Finger Print Bureau on 10-10-79. In such circumstances, material link evidence is conspicuously missing in this case, which is fatal to the prosecution. 28. In State of Rajasthan vs. Daulatram ( AIR 1980 SC 1314 : 1980 CriLJ 929), the samples of opium changed several hands before reaching the public analyst and yet none of those in whose custody the samples remained was examined by the prosecution to prove that while in their custody the seals on the samples were not tampered with. The Apex Court held that the inevitable effect of such omission was that the prosecution palpably failed to rule out the possibility of the samples being changed or tampered with during the period in question, a fact which has to be proved affirmatively by the prosecution. consequently, the accused was acquitted for the offence under Section 9 of the Opium Act. 29. In Mahmood vs. State of UP A1R1976 S 69, 1976 CriLJlO , (1976 )1 SCC542 the investigator did not take all necessary precautions which could be taken to eliminate the possibility of fabrication or tampering with seals of the packet containing recovered articles e.g. weapon of offence. He also did not procure signatures of the motbirs on the parcel containing ‘gandasa’ nor did he entrust his seal to the Sarpanch or any other respectable persons after sealing the said parcel. The Apex Court held that the material link of the evidence was missing and acquitted the accused. 30. He also did not procure signatures of the motbirs on the parcel containing ‘gandasa’ nor did he entrust his seal to the Sarpanch or any other respectable persons after sealing the said parcel. The Apex Court held that the material link of the evidence was missing and acquitted the accused. 30. In State of Rajasthan vs. Balbir Singh (1979 WLN 501), the Investigating Officer did not depose that the sealed packet containing articles recovered at the instance of the accused, remained in safe custody and that the seals thereon were not tampered with while they were in custody of the police at all times till they were handed over for examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory. It was held that in such circumstances, the discovery of blood stains on the recovered articles could not be relied upon and that such a recovery did not connect the accused with the crime. 5.31. In Ram Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (1988 Raj cr cases (DB) p. 65), it has been rekerated that the burden squarely lies on the prosecution to prove that the recovered articles remained in tact till they reached the State Forensic Science Laboratory and that the seals thereon were not tampered with and that if the prosecution failed to prove the said fact, the same creates serious doubt against the prosecution and the accused is entitled to acquittal. 6.32. In the case on hand neither Madanlal Bhargava (PW9), Incharge MOB CID SP Office, Alwar or Ram Avtar (PW17) ASI nor Gopal Singh (PW18) SHO nor Jagdish Malhotra (PW2O) who conducted the investigation in this case, has deposed that the sealed packet containing Articles 40 to 43 remained in his. safe custody and seals thereon remained in tact and were not tampered with till the said sealed packet was received in Finger Print Bureau on 10-10-79. Even Ajit Krishna (PW16), Director Finger Print Bureau has not stated that the scaled packet containing the aforesaid articles was received by him and that the seals thereon were in tact and that those tallied with the specimen seal impression. In view of this, most material link of the evidence is missing in this case, which makes the prosecution case highly suspicious and doubtful and also renders the report (Ex.P.46) ineffective. In view of this, most material link of the evidence is missing in this case, which makes the prosecution case highly suspicious and doubtful and also renders the report (Ex.P.46) ineffective. The prosecution has, therefore, miserably failed to establish that the chance prints of the accused persons were found on Articles 40 to 43 which were lying scattered at the place of the occurrence in the house of Babulal. 7.33. Tirath Das (PW1O) has stated that he had taken photographs (Ex.P. 10 to P.20) of the place of occurrence. Ganga Sharan (PW1I) Sarpanch has proved the report (Ex.P.28) and formal FIR. He has stated that he had not gone inside the house of Babulal before lodging the report (Ex.P.28). 8.34. Madanlal (PW12) is the Motbir of the site plan (Ex.P.30), seizure memo of blood stained soil (Ex.P.31) and controlled soil (Ex.P.32), seizure memo of blood stained rope (Ex.P.34), apparels of the deceased Smt. Kistoori & Kumari Sunita(Ex.P.35 & P.36, respectively), memo of chance prints (Ex.P.5), seizure memo of dead bodies (Ex.P.37 & P.38) and their inquest reports (Ex.P.43 & P.44 respectively). He stated that the a