Judgment Gopal Lal Gupta, J.-Mst. Amri and Dhanna have preferred separate appeals against their convictions and sentences recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur vide Judgment dated 20-8-1979. They have been sentenced under Section 302, IPC to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 100A and under Section 201, IPC to undergo 2 years R.I. and pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to tin concurrently. 2. Thecase relates to the murder of Bada (70 years). It is on 3-11-1978 Harji informed Station House Officer, Police Station, Simalwada that there was a dead body floating in the well situated near the school. On this report proceedings under Section 174, CrPC were held. The dead body was taken out and post-mortem was got done by Dr. Shantilal Jain, PW. 12. When the dead body was taken out of the well, that was identified as that of Bada who according to the family members was missing for some days. Thereafter a case under Section 302, IPC was registered and regular investigation started. The police arrested the accused persons, recovered their clothes and the Kulhari at their instance and from their possession. Some evidence regarding enmity was also collected. After completion of the investigation, the challan was submitted. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 302 and 201, IPC against both the accused-appellants who pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined PW. 1 Harji, PW. 2 Deva, PW. 3 Sorna, PW. 4 Lalit Mohan, PW. 5 Kuber, PW. 6 Kalji, PW. 7 Kalidas, PW. 8 Vakta Ram, PW. 9Phula,PW. l0 Marta,PW. 11 Balmaji, PW. 12 Dr. Shantilal Jain and PW. 13 Chandra Nath, SHO In the statement recorded under Section 313, CrPC, the accused denied the correctness of the statement of the witnesses. They produced no evidence in defence. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties found that it were the accused persons who had committed the murder of Bada and they had also concealed the dead body. Eventually the accused were convicted and sentenced as stated above. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent. 4. Mr. Eventually the accused were convicted and sentenced as stated above. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent. 4. Mr. Doongar Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that the learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence produced against the accused and has erroneously held that the accused were the persons who were connected with the murder of Bada. He has taken us through the evidence regarding incriminating circumstances relied on by the learned Sessions Judge. 5. Mr. Bohra on the other hand has tried to support the Judgment of the learned trial Court. 6. We have given the matter our thoughtful consideration. The prosecution had relied on three circumstances before the Sessions Court; first motive for the crime, second, the recovery of the Sari having blood stains from the accused Mst. Amri and third, recovery of Dhoti and Kulhari from and at the instance of the accused Dhanna. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the first circumstances of motive and we think rightly. However, he has relied on the other two circumstances. 7. We shall take up the circumstances one by one. Recovery of Sari at the instance of the accused Amri:-PW. 13 Chandranath has deposed that accused Amri gave information Exhibit-P/ 20 and thereafter she got the Sari recovered from her house which was seized vide memo Exhibit-P/8. According to him this Sari was having blood marks. Both the Motbirs PW. 4 Lalit Mohan and PW. 6 Kalji have denied to have seen the accused getting Sari recovered from her house. Thus, we are left with the statement of the Investigating Officer only. A reading of the statement of the Investigating Officer shows that he had not cared to investigate the murder case with sincerity and attention. He has admitted that wrong dates were recorded on the memos and there are over writings. First he stated that he had prepared the memo on a particular date while in subsequent examination he sated that that was not the correct date. Be that as it may, even if we accept that some Sari was recovered at the instance of the accused Amri from her house no inference of murder can be drawn against her. First he stated that he had prepared the memo on a particular date while in subsequent examination he sated that that was not the correct date. Be that as it may, even if we accept that some Sari was recovered at the instance of the accused Amri from her house no inference of murder can be drawn against her. The recovery is said to have taken place on 7-11-1978 and the report of the F.S.L Exhibit-P/24 indicates that the Sari Packet was sent to the laboratory vide letter dated 16-12-1978. Thus, the recovered Sari remained in the possession of the police from 7-11-178 to 16-12-1978. There is no proof on record regarding the fact that Sari was kept intact from the time it was recovered till it reached the F.S.L. It is significant to point out that though in the memo Exhibit-P/8 it has been stated that the Sari was sealed yet no seal impression is marked on Exhibit-P/8. Besides this the report Exhibit-P/26 of the Serologist does not communicate that the Sari was stained with human blood. The Sari has been referred to as item No. ii in the report which was marked to as item No. 9 by the Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory. In the report it has been clearly stated that the origin of the blood on this item could not be determined. That being so, it cannot be said that the blood mark found on the Sari was of human blood. Thus by the alleged recovery the involvement of this accused in the murder of Bada, cannot be inferred. 8. PW. 13 Chandra Nath has also deposed that the accused while giving information Ex.P./20 had also stated that she would disclose the place where the offence was committed, and according to him he visited the site on 8-11 -1978 and found that there were some blood drops which he collected. The Motbirs of the memo Exhibit-P--6 PW. 4 Lalit Mohan and PW. 6 Kalji have not supported the statement of the Investigating Officer. It is significant to point out that according to Chandra Nath the recovery of Sari was made from the same room of the accused which was inspected on the next day, i.e. on 8-11 -1978. The Motbirs of the memo Exhibit-P--6 PW. 4 Lalit Mohan and PW. 6 Kalji have not supported the statement of the Investigating Officer. It is significant to point out that according to Chandra Nath the recovery of Sari was made from the same room of the accused which was inspected on the next day, i.e. on 8-11 -1978. When the Investigating Officer had the information on 7-11-1978 itself that Sari was lying there and she would also point out the place, it is not understood why the Investigating Officer did riot care to see the site on that very day. On questioning in this regard strange explanation has come from Shri Chandra Nath. He has deposed that as he had no time on that day, he did not see the place indicated in the information memo. The Investigating Officer was investigating a murder case. It is really shocking when he says that he had no time to see the place which was in the room where the Sari was recovered. 9. Moreover, as per the Inspection Memo Exhibit-P/6 the earth collected from the room which was said to be stained with blood was sealed in Packet A and Packet C and at the same time Packets B and D were prepared for control soil. Exhibit-P/24 shows that soil in Packet B was blood smeared soil. As already stated sample B contained control soil. It is not understood how this packet B was found to contain blood smeared soil. Packet A as per the report Exhibit-P/24 did not contain soil. It is thus obvious that whatever has been recorded in the Inspection Memo Exhibit-P-6 is incorrect. In these circumstances, the prosecution evidence that the accused Amri got recovered the blood-stained Sari and led the Investigating Officer to the site where the blood was found can hardly be believed and the learned Sessions Judge has erred in believing such a tainted evidence. 10. Recovery of Dhoti and Kuihari from the accused Dhanna :-PW. 13 Chandra Nath has deposed that he had arrested the accused Dhanna vide arrest memo Exhibit-P/19 and at that time he was wearing Bushirt and Dhoti and as the Dhoti was containing blood stains he seized the Dhoti. He has further deposed that the accused gave information Exhibit-P/21 and thereafter he recovered the Kulhari from the Kotha of Amri co-accused. 11. He has further deposed that the accused gave information Exhibit-P/21 and thereafter he recovered the Kulhari from the Kotha of Amri co-accused. 11. We have already seen that the Investigating Officer had visited the Kotha of accused Amri on 7-11-1978. On that date he did not notice any Kuihari in the house of Amri. Under these circumstances, it cannot be believed that there was a Kuihari and the police recovered it at the instance of the accused Dhanna. This recovery is clearly planted one. As regards the Dhoti worn by the accused at the time of arrest, it may be stated that PW. 10 Mara Motbir has not supported the prosecution case that when the police arrested Dhana his Dhoti was seized by the police. Even questions were not put to him in this regard. The other Motbir of the arrest memo Exhibit-P/19 has not been examined. Be that as it may, the recovery of the Dhoti which might be stained with human blood is not sufficient to connect the accused with the murder of Bada. Moreso, when there is no seal impression on the memo Exhibit-P/19 and evidence regarding keeping the sealed packet intact from 7-11-78 to the date it reached the F.S.L. is not forthcoming. 12. In our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge has fallen into error when he convicted the appellants on weak, limping and unreliable evidence. The conviction of the appellants deserves to be set aside. 13. Consequently, we accept this appeal, set aside the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and hereby acquit the appellants of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. They are on bail. They shall not surrender to the bail bonds, which stand cancelled.