JUDGMENT 1. - By her judgment and order dated June 30, 1998, made in Sessions Case No. 36 of 1997 State v. Ram Kumar , the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar (Rajasthan) held Ram Kumar appellant guilty of the offences under section 302 and 429 IPC, convicted him as such and sentenced him as under: U/s. 302 IPC : Death Sentence U/s. 429 IPC : Two years Rigorours Imprisonment plus fine of Rs. 500/-. 2. The learned trial Judge has submitted the proceedings of trial for confirmation of the sentence of death, as passed by him in the case, by this Court as required by Section 366 (1) Cr.P.C. and the submission has been registered as D.B. Cr. Reference No. 2/98. The appellant Ram Kumar, has challenged the judgement and order of his conviction and sentences by preferring appeal under section 374 (2) Cr.PC. through Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur and that stands registered as D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 494 of 1998. 3. Initially Mr. S.K. Gupta, a Senior Advocate of this Court, was appointed Amicus-Curie to assist the Court for and on behalf of the convict, but since, later on, Mr. R.S. Rathore, another Senior Advocate, appeared for and on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Gupta sought permission of the Court to relieve him of his obligation and the permission was accorded by the Bench. The reference and the appeal were, therefore, argued by Mr. Rathore on behalf of the appellant and by Mr. G.D. Parwal, Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the State of Rajasthan. 4. The record of the proceedings of the trial court unfolds the prosecution case as under:Round about midday on the 25th day of March 1997 PW/27 Sampat Singh, the then Station House Officer at Police Station Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar (Raj.) received a teiephonic message from some unknown person that a person had caused death of three persons in Khatipura, a village lying about 9 KM in the West from the said police station. Sampat Singh SHO, alongwith his subordinates, reached village Khatipura at 1.10 P.M. and found Smt. Bhagwati Devi (60) Smt. Bimla Devi (28), Kalu Ram (8), all deceased, and a dead she-goat (4-5 years) with injuries on their respective persons, lying at the house of PW/12 Nanag Ram Balai, father of the appellant. The accused persons were the mother, wife and son respectively of the present appellant. The accused persons were the mother, wife and son respectively of the present appellant. The SHO obtained a written report about the incident (Ex.P/5) from PW/7 Kusha Ram, a cousin of the appellant, and forwarded the same to the police station through Shri Kishan Constable for registration of the case. At the police station PW/25 Mangal Sen, ASI, registered Crime No. 86 of 1997 Under section 302, 307 and 429 IPC vide FIR Ex.P/44. In the F.I.R. the facts stated were to the effect that on account of some dispute in the family the appellant had caused death of his minor son Kalu Ram and his wife Smt. Bimla and attempted to cause death of his mother Smt. Bhagwati Devi as also killed a she-goat by causing injuries to them with some weapon. Sampat Singh SHO commenced investigation into the offences. 5. A Board of doctors and a Vetenary sugeron were called for by Sampat Singh SHO on the spot to conduct the post- mortem examinations on the dead bodies of the two deceased ladies and the male child as also the dead animal. PW/3 Dr. Richpal, PW/4 Dr. Ratan Singh Modi and PW/5 Dr. G.R. Tanwar conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of Smt. Bhagwani, Smt. Bimla and Kalu Ram and opined that they had died of the injuries caused to them with some blunt objects on their heads. PW/6 Dr. Ram Niwas expressed a similar opinion in respect to the death of the animal to whom injury with some blunt object had been caused on head. 6. In the course of investigation Sampat Singh SHO examined a number of witnesses under section 161 Cr.PC. and came to know that a day earlier the appellant had set the Poolas' of PW/18 Bhagwana to fire whereupon a Panchayat had been called and as per decision of the Panchayat appellants younger brother had paid Rs. 1000/- to Bhagwana as fine, that the appellant was behaving like a mad man from two days before and that on the day of incident he had caused injuries to the two ladies and the child as also to the she-goat and was seen running from the village towards jungle with an iron pipe in his hand. 1000/- to Bhagwana as fine, that the appellant was behaving like a mad man from two days before and that on the day of incident he had caused injuries to the two ladies and the child as also to the she-goat and was seen running from the village towards jungle with an iron pipe in his hand. Sampat Singh prepared the Punchnama of the dead bodies of men and animal and seized thek blood stained clothes and also blood stained and control soil from the place of occurrence in presence of PW/1 Sohan Singh, PW/2 Sita Ram, PW/8 Ganesha Ram, PW/9 Gopal, PW/13 Sanwar Mal, PW/14 Bhagirath, PW/19 Rameshwar, and handed over the dead bodies for final disposal to PW/11 Prakash, the younger brother of the deceased. He then left for the jungle in search of the accused-appellant. 7. In his search for the appellant, Sampat Singh SHO found him sitting at a temple near village Khudi, at a distance of about 1 or 11/2Km. from village Khatipura, with a purse in his hands. The SHO arrested the appellant in presence of PW/8 Ganesha Ram and PW/10 Kaloo Ram at 6.30 P.M. on 25.3.97, vide Ex.P/45. The purse contained a silver coin and currency of Rs. 2.50 P. An iron pipe measuring one feet and 91/2inches length and one inch width, polished but containing some blood-stained spot on it was allegedly recovered from his possession and duly seized and sealed in presence of PW/22 Chiranji Lal and one Phoola Ram R/o Khati Pura vide Ex.P/38. Site map of the place of recovery (Ex.P/47) was also prepared. The arrested appellant was taken to the police station and lodged in the police lock-up and the seized articles including the iron pipe and blood stained clothes of the deceased persons and blood stained and control soil, contained in 11 sealed packets were handed-over to PW/20 Bhagwan Singh, Head Moharrir and Malkhana 1/c for safe custody. Later-on, PW/23 Murlidhar delivered the sealed packets at the State Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Jaipur (FSL) on 30.4.1997. Asstt. Director (Serology) of the FSL found presence of human blood on the iron pipe and pant worn by the accused Ramkumar vide his Report Ex.P/57. 8. In the morning of 26.3.1997 Sampat Singh SHO called for a team of experts and photographers from the Finger Print bureau of the Police Deptt. at Jaipur. Asstt. Director (Serology) of the FSL found presence of human blood on the iron pipe and pant worn by the accused Ramkumar vide his Report Ex.P/57. 8. In the morning of 26.3.1997 Sampat Singh SHO called for a team of experts and photographers from the Finger Print bureau of the Police Deptt. at Jaipur. A team of such persons, consisting of PW/16 Jai Prakash, Constable, PW/17 Narender Singh ASI (Photography) and PW/24 Anil Shah, Senior Photographer, reached the police Station Laxmangarh and obtained the specimen finger prints of the appellant (Ex.P 50 to Ex.P 56). The iron pipe, kept in the double lock of the Police Malkhana, was taken out, the seal thereupon was broken by PW/15 Sarjeet Constable and the Police Photographers developed the chance prints thereupon with the help of grey powder vide Ex.P/25. On comparison of the chance print of the iron pipe with the specimen/finger prints of the appellant the Director Finger Print Bureau, vide his report dated 12.5.1997 (Ex.P/58) reported that the specimen of the right thumb print (of the appellant) had identical similarity with the chance print on the iron pipe. 9. In the evening of 26.3.1997 at about 7.00 PM. Sampat Singh SHO noticed certain blood stain marks on the shirt and the pent which the appellant, then in police lock up at the police station, was putting on. He, therefore, seized and sealed both the clothes of the appellant in presence of Kalou Ram (PW/10) and Gopal vide Ex.P/46. The serologist has reported presence of human blood on the pent. 10. Sampat Singh SHO had completed almost the entire investigation in the case but before he could have submitted a report under section 173 (2) Cr.PC in the case he was transferred. His successor. PW/26 Bhanwar Lal SHO took charge of the case and after recording the statement of one witness, namely PW/21 Shiv Prakash Photographer, who had taken the photographs of the dead bodies on 25.3.97, submitted the police report under section 173 Cr.PC. in the court of the concerned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Sikar and after trial of the appellant on charges under section 302 and 429 IPC the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above. 11. Mr. in the court of the concerned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Sikar and after trial of the appellant on charges under section 302 and 429 IPC the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above. 11. Mr. R.S. Rathore, the learned counsel for the appellant urged that there being no ocular evidence to connect the appellant with the tripple tragedy his conviction for the offence under section 302 and 429 IPC rests on two circumstances, namely one, the alleged recovery of a blood stained iron pipe from his possession and two, the blood stained pent which he is said to be putting 'on when he was arrested soon after the occurrence. The learned counsel submitted that not only that neither of the circumstances, even if it is found established, is of conclusive nature but also that neither of the two can be accepted as true in the facts and circumstances of this case. In fact Mr. Rathore urged that the present case is a glaring instance of very poor and manipulated investigation and a bare knowledge of the manner in which Sumer Singh SHO conducted and carried on the investigation into the ghastly offences committed in this case would lead to the conclusion that the said responsible police officer acted in most irresponsible manner and collected legal evidence in an illegal manner by deliberately making departure from well established and well know practice and procedure for collecting legal evidence against an accused in a criminal case. Mr. Mr. Rathore pointed out that at the time of the arrest of the appellant neither an iron pipe was shown in his possession nor his pent was shown having any blood stains on it but at the police station such evidence was created and giving a go-bye to the well know procedure of obtaining the specimen finger prints of an accused in the presence of a Magistrate or some other independent and respectable person, when such Magistrate or other such persons were most conveniently available to the investigating officer, Sampat Singh SHO took out the so called iron pipe from the double Lock without making any relevant entry to that effect in the Malkhana Register, broke the seal allegedly put on the packet and got the chance print prepared by the police photographers without associating any independent witness from the densely populated place where the police station was located and independent witnesses apart from gazetted and responsible Government officers, namely a Judicial Magistrate and a tehsildar, were most conveniently available. Mr. Rathore further submitted that the evidence of the alleged blood-stained pent was collected in no better way. The learned counsel pointed out that though the appellant was alleged to have been arrested on 25.3.97 at 6.30 P.M. and at the time of his alleged arrest the clothes which the appellant was putting on at that time were fully and carefully examined and the contents found in his possession were mentioned in the arrest memo yet neither it was mentioned that the appellant was possessing an iron pipe also nor it was indicated that his shirt and/or pent were having any blood stain marks. But it was as late as at 7.00 P.M. on 26.3.97, when the appellant had already been produced before the concerned Magistrate as per provisions of Section 167 Cr.PC., that blood stains were allegedly noticed on the shirt and. pent of the appellant at the police station. Mr. Rathore emphatically urged that the so-called incriminating circumstantial evidence collected by Sampat Singh SHO against the appellant in the manner stated above deserves strong disapproval and rejection by this court instead of being given judicial recognition. 12. The learned Public Prosecutor found it difficult to rebut and contradict the factual position of the evidence on the two incriminating circumstances, as highlighted by Mr. Rathore. 12. The learned Public Prosecutor found it difficult to rebut and contradict the factual position of the evidence on the two incriminating circumstances, as highlighted by Mr. Rathore. He, however, submitted that in the present case the offence were committed in the residential house of the appellant and he was arrested soon after the occurrence and a blood stained iron pipe was also recovered from his possession and his clothes were also found blood stained. Such facts obviously, urged the learned Public Prosecutor, incriminate the appellant. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that there may be some inadvertent lapse on the part of Sampat Singh SHO in conducting the investigation into the offences committed in this case and he should have acted in a more cautious and careful manner in collecting the evidence against the appellant but inadvertent or non-deliberate lapses in conducting the investigation and collecting the evidence should not out-weigh the worth and value of such evidence. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that this court should not over look the broad fact that as many as three human beings and an innocent animal were the victims of the brutal acts of commission and inhuman behaviour of the appellant. It was submitted that un-important technicalities and non-consequential irregularities in conducting the investigation should not be allowed to prevail over the substantial guilt of the appellant. 13. After having heard the learned counsel for both the sides and on careful examination of the evidence available on the record of the learned trial judge quite closely and minutely we are of the view that contensions advanced by Mr. Rathore deserve consideration and approval. 14. It is not in dispute in this case that on the fateful day, time and place Smt. Bhagwati Devi, Smt. Bimla and Kalu Ram, all deceased, were brutally assaulted with some blunt weapons in rapid succession by their armed assailant. Even the innocent animal, a she-goat aged about 4, 5 years, was also not spared by the assailant or assailants who appears to have run amuck. All the three innocent human beings arid the innocent animal had sustained fatal injuries on the vital parts of their respective bodies and had succumbed to their injuries. On examination of the dead bodies of the three persons Dr. Richpal Singh and Dr. All the three innocent human beings arid the innocent animal had sustained fatal injuries on the vital parts of their respective bodies and had succumbed to their injuries. On examination of the dead bodies of the three persons Dr. Richpal Singh and Dr. Ratan Modi had noticed three lacerated wounds including two on head portion, on the person of Kalu Ram deceased and six lacerated wounds, including four on head portion, on the person of his mother Smt. Bimla Devi deceased. On the person of Smt. Bhagwani Devi Dr. G.R. Tanwar had found three lacerated wounds, including two on head portion, and swelling on left temporal region. The injuries to all the three injured persons had been caused with some blunt weapon within the last 4 to 24 hours and since the brains of the three deceased were directly damaged, as a result of successive and repeated assault on the relevant parts of their heads, leading to their deaths, those were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The part of the bodies of the victims chosen for assault by their assailant, repetition of successive blows given on those parts and the weapon used by him clearly speak that the acts had been intentionally done and the aforesaid injuries to the deceased had been intentially caused by the assailant on those parts. There is no evidence on record, even to remotely suggest, that the assailant had done such violent acts and exhibited such a violent behaviour against them after having been provoked by them and loosing his self-control as a result of such provocation or that he had acted in a state of insanity. That being so v/e are satisfied that in causing the death of the three deceased offence punishable under section 302 IPC was committed by the assailant against them. 15. On examination of the dead body of the she-goat on 26.3.97 at 8.00 A.M. at village Khati pura PW/6 Dr. Ram Niwas, a Vetenary surgeon at Vetenary Hospital at Khoori, had noted swelling in an area of one inch radius, on the head of the animal. On opening the dead body of the animal the expert-witness found fracture of the occipital bone. The injury to the animal had been caused with some blunt object before 20 hours prior to the examination. On opening the dead body of the animal the expert-witness found fracture of the occipital bone. The injury to the animal had been caused with some blunt object before 20 hours prior to the examination. The facts found by the expert witness on and in side the dead body of the animal are sufficient to infer that she had died of the injury sustained by her resulting wrongful loss to her owner. The animal was worth more than Rs. 50/- and in her death by killing the owner had been caused wrongful loss. An offence punishable under section 429 IPC is also proved to have been committed in the present case. 16. The pertinent question that now arises for our consideration is as to who was the perpetrator of the ghastly crime against three innocent and helpless human beings and also an animal? Was he the appellant before us or could he be some body else? If he was the present appellant, as is alleged, then has the prosecution been successful in bringing guilt home to him with trust-worthy and reliable evidence-direct or circumstantial? 17. As was urged by Mr. Rathore and his submission in that behalf could not be challenged by the learned Public Prosecutor and on a close study of the material available on the record of the trial court we too are satisfied that it is not a case of direct evidence and the only incriminating pieces of evidence against the present appellant comprises of the incriminating iron pipe stated to be blood stained and to have been recovered from the possession of the appellant and the blood stained pent taken from his person, do the afore-said two circumstance, if found established from cogent and convincing evidence on record, go to make the required complete chain so as to hold the present appellant only and no body else guilty of the ghastly crimes beyond any manner of reasonable doubt? Let us examine. 18. Let us examine. 18. However, before we proceed to examine the existence and sufficiency of the aforesaid two circumstances, which are stated to be incriminating against and proving the guilt of the appellant, we would like to scrutinise the evidence on record of the learned trial court with a view to find out if there exits any other fact which also incriminates the appellant or may corroborate the prosecution case on the aforesaid two circumstances or any other relevant and material point. In such effort and exercise we find that the prosecution had examination as many as 27 witnesses in this case besides getting fifty nine documents exhibited. Of the oral evidence produced at the trial PW/1 Sohan Singh, PW/2 Sita Ram, PW/8 Ganesha Ram, PW/9 Gopal, PW/10 Kaloo Ram, PW/13 Sanwar Mal, PW/14 Bhagirath and PW/19 Rameshwar were examined as Punch witnesses. A majority of these witnesses have turned hostile though they admitted that the police had prepared some documents relating to the dead persons and animal and that they were made to sign such document. The facts to be proved were quite formal and those could have been proved either by the affidavits of the concerned witnesses (See Sections 294 to 296 Cr.PC.) or by examining one or two of them. When preparation of Punchaytnamas of the deceased persons and the dead animal was not a disputed tact precious time of the court and the witnesses and public money should not have been wasted for bringing evidence of purely formal character on record. 19. Be that as it may, on proceeding further we find that PW/3 Dr. Richpal, PW/4 Dr Ratan Modi, PW/5 Dr. G.R. Tanwar and PW/6 Dr. Ram Niwas had tendered the medical evidence in the case and such evidence has already been discussed above. It is thus evident that the evidence led by these witnesses does not directly incriminate the present appellant. 20. PW/7 Kushala Ram is the informant in the present case. He is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. Though he admitted to have submitted the written report to the police in the village, yet he denied the contents thereof and pleaded utter ignorance about the incident and causes of death of the three persons and the animal. 20. PW/7 Kushala Ram is the informant in the present case. He is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. Though he admitted to have submitted the written report to the police in the village, yet he denied the contents thereof and pleaded utter ignorance about the incident and causes of death of the three persons and the animal. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution but no useful purpose could be served and nothing incriminating against the applicant could be extracted from his hostile testimony. 21. PW/11 Prakash is the younger brother of the appellant and PW/12 Nanag Ram is his father. Although both were examined to prove the incident of burning of Bhagwanas Poolas by the appellant on the previous day and thus to establish a motive on the part of the appellant to commit the present tragedy but both turned hostile and did not at all support the prosecution case against the appellant. Their testimony too does not incriminate the appellant. 22. PW/18 Bhagwana is the person whose Poolas are stated to have been burnt by the appellant on the previous day and Prakash had to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- to him as per decision of the Panchayat. This witness did not support such version and turned hostile. 23. On close scrutiny of the testimony of the above-named prosecution witnesses we are satisfied that their evidence does not establish any incriminating circumstance against the appellant. Even it can not be gathered from their evidence that the appellant was seen on or near the place of occurrence with or without any weapon before or after the occurrence. Their evidence throws no light on the probable motive on the part of the appellant to commit the crime against his nears and dears. It is also not brought on record from their evidence that the appellant was seen behaving like a mad man on or before the day of occurrence. Thus the testimony of all these witnesses does not incriminate the appellant in any manner. That takes us to the evidence which is stated to be proving the two highly incriminating facts/circumstances completing the guilty chain to be put around the neck of the appellant as a guilty man.ARREST OF THE APPELLANT AND RECOVERY OF ARTICLES. 24. As stated earlier, the appellant is alleged to have been arrested on 25.3.1997 at 6.30 PM. That takes us to the evidence which is stated to be proving the two highly incriminating facts/circumstances completing the guilty chain to be put around the neck of the appellant as a guilty man.ARREST OF THE APPELLANT AND RECOVERY OF ARTICLES. 24. As stated earlier, the appellant is alleged to have been arrested on 25.3.1997 at 6.30 PM. by PW/27 Sampat Singh SHO in presence of PW/8 Ganesha Ram and Kaloo Ram (PW 10) vide Ex.P/45. The arrest memo Ex.P/45 does not specify the place of his arrest and neither Ganesha Ram, who is a retired Captain, nor Kaloo Ram, the other witness to arrest memo were examined as witnesses of the arrest of the appellant. Both the aforesaid witnesses, who were though named as witnesses to the arrest of the appellant in the arrest Memo Ex.P/45, were examined as witnesses to the Punchaytnamas, Ex.P/7 and Ex.P/8 which they testified and neither of them was declared hostile for not supporting the prosecution case on the point of the arrest of the appellant. In fact they are not at all asked any question as whether the appellant was ever arrested in their presence. This leaves us with the testimony of PW/27 Sampat Singh SHO alone on that point. 25. Although in his examination PW/27 Sampat Singh simply stated that he had arrested the appellant vide Ex.P/45 and did not mention the time and place of his arrest but with a view to know the true facts relating to the arrest of the appellant we proceed further with the testimony of PW/27 Sampat Singh and of the scrutiny of the documents which he has stated to have prepared at the time and place cf the arrest of the appellant. 26. Sampat Singh has further stated that at the time of arrest of the appellant he had seized the shirt and pent which he had been putting on at that time, vide Ex.P/46, recovered the iron pipe (Ex.P 47) which he was having in his hand now Kaloo Ram PW/10 and PW/9 Gopal have been shown as attesting witnesses to seizure of shirt and pent of the appellant, PW/22 Chiranji Lal and one Phoola Ram as that of iron-pipe and the site map Ex. P/47. P/47. Whereas the arrest Memo Ex.P/45 has been shown as prepared on 25.3.97 at 6.30 P.M., the recovery memo of the iron pipe and the site map of the place of recovery of the said article on 25.3.1997 without mentioning any time of their preparation, the seizure Memo of the shirt and pent of the appellant Ex.P/38 is dated 26.3.97 and the time of its prepation has been mentioned as at 7.00 PM. As stated above neither PW/8 Ganesha Ram nor PW/10 Kaloo Ram has supported the version given in the Memos which purport to bear their signatures. Gopal PW/9 has also not supported the prosecution case in that behalf and Phoola Ram was not at all examined in the case. 27. PW/22 Chiranji Lal no doubt appears to have stated in the examination in chief that the appellant was arrested in the jungle of village Kheri and one iron pipe was seized from his possession. But in cross-examination he stated that he himself had not gone to the jungle and that the police had brought the arrested appellant to the village and obtained his signature on some papers. He further stated that he saw no pipe at that time. On such testimony the witness was not declared hostile by the prosecution. The testimony of this witness is, on the face of it, self contradictory and can not be accepted on the point of either the arrest of the appellant or seizure or recovery of any iron pipe from his possession in the presence of the witness, later discussion would go to show that his statement to the effect that the police had brought the appellant to the village and got certain papers signed by him and/or other witnesses and that at that time there was no iron pipe with the appellant and/or the police appears to be nearer to the truth. 28. A perusal of the arrest memo, seizure of shirt and pent of the appellant, the recovery of the memo of the iron pipe and the site map of the place of recovery, shows that all are stated to have been prepared at the time of arrest of the appellant in the jungle of village Khoori. 28. A perusal of the arrest memo, seizure of shirt and pent of the appellant, the recovery of the memo of the iron pipe and the site map of the place of recovery, shows that all are stated to have been prepared at the time of arrest of the appellant in the jungle of village Khoori. A glance at the site map Ex.P/47, if it can be so read for sake of arguments, would go to show that the place of the arrest of the appellant is a temple, on the public way from village Khatipura to village Khoori. In front of the temple there is an electric transformer and village Khoori lies nearby. The proceedings of arrest and search of the appellant, seizure of the cloth, then put on by him, the recovery of the iron pipe and the preparation of the site map are stated to have been taken by Sampat Singh SHO at that very place in the presence of PW/8 Ganesha Ram, PW/9 Gopal, PW/10 Kaloo Ram, PW/22 Chiranji Lal, one Phoola Ram and Balblr Singh Constable. Phoola Ram and Balbir Singh Constable were hot examined at the trial and all the ether witnesses to the alleged proceeding turned hostile. It is a peculiar aspect of the proceedings that the arrest memo (Ex.P/45) was signed/thumb marked by Ganesha Ram, Kaloo Ram and Balbir Singh Constable (whose name had though not been mentioned in the body of the memo), the seizure memo of the cloths of the appellant Ex. P/46 (which is shown to have been prepared on the following day i.e. 26.3.97 at 7.00 PM. but stated on oath by Sampat Singh to have been prepared alongwith the other memos) is thumb marked by Kaloo Ram and Gopal, afore-mentioned, the recovery memo of the iron pipe (Ex.P/38) and the site map of the place of recovery thereof (Ex.P/47) by Chirnaji Lal and Phoola Ram. Though all these proceedings are stated to have been taken on the outskirts of village Khoori in day time yet no witness from that village was associated in such proceedings and no plausible explanation for not doing that was also offered by Sampat Singh SHO. Though all these proceedings are stated to have been taken on the outskirts of village Khoori in day time yet no witness from that village was associated in such proceedings and no plausible explanation for not doing that was also offered by Sampat Singh SHO. Although the iron pipe was stated to have been taken from the hand of the appellant but instead of showing the seizure thereof from his person and possession, recovery thereof from a place in respect of which preparation of a site map was felt, was shown. The very fact that instead of showing seizure of the iron pipe from the person and possession of the appellant, recovery thereof was thought of to be shown, necessitating the preparation of a site-map of the place of alleged recovery, suggests that Sampat Singh SHO intended to show the discovery of that incriminating face in consequence of some disclosure statement of the appellant under section 27 of the Evidence Act, but, later on, he changed his mind. Such, an inference can also be made on reading the entry' at S.No. 10, as made in the Malkhaha Register (Ex.P/2) wherein it was stated that the iron pipe was recovered at the Nishan Dehi of the appellant. 29. To sum-up the evidence on the arrest of the appellant and seizure of the iron pipe and blood stained shirt and/or pent from his person is not reliable and trustworthy and is liable to be rejected.THE MALKHANA ENTRIES 30. Sampat Singh SHO has stated that in the course of investigation made on 25.3.97 he had prepared sealed packets of the articles as were, seized from the place of occurrence (Blood stained and control soil), from the persons of the three deceased (blood stained clothes), from the persons of the appellant (blood-stained shirt and pent) and as was recovered at the instance of the appellant (blood stained iron pipe) and deposited them in the Malkhana at the police station. He further stated that on 25.3.97 the specimen finger prints of the appellant and the chance print from the iron pipe were obtained and they all (nine sheets in all) were deposited in the Malkahana. Thus in all 12 sealed packets, including one prepared on 26.3.97, were deposited in the Malkhana. 31. PW/20 Bhagwan Singh Head Moharrir was the Malkhana In-charge on 25.3.97 and 26.3.97. Thus in all 12 sealed packets, including one prepared on 26.3.97, were deposited in the Malkhana. 31. PW/20 Bhagwan Singh Head Moharrir was the Malkhana In-charge on 25.3.97 and 26.3.97. He stated that on 25.3.97 the SHO had delivered to him 12 sealed packets relating to Crime No. 86/97 Under section 302 IPC and those were entered by him at S.No. 187 dated 25.3.97 in the Malkhana Register vide entry Ex.P/27. The entries were made not by the witness himself but one Ram Gopal constable, who has not been examined in the case. In such entries the sealed packet containing the iron pipe was mentioned at S. No. 10, the one containing the blood stained shirt and pent of the appellant (the seizure memo of which is dated 26.3.97 shown prepared at 7.00 PM., as discussed above) at S.No 11 and the Specimen and chance finger prints (admittedly obtained on 26 3.97) and not on 25.3.97) at S.No. 12. The entries so made in the Malkhana Register were neither signed by Sampat Singh SHO in proof of having delivered the twelve sealed packet to the Malkhana In-charge nor by Bhagwan Singh Head Moharrir in token if his having received those articles from the SHO on 25.3.97. Even the cuttings and over-writings made in the entry at S.No. 10, relating to the deposit of iron pipe, were neither initialed by the Malkhana 1/C Bhagwan Singh nor by the alleged scribe Ram Gopal. The specimen finger prints of the appellant had not, admittedly, been obtained on 25.3.97. How was it then that an entry at S.No. 12 in Ex.P/27 came to be made in regard to them on 25.3.97? There is explanation to these discrepancies. 32. The specimen finger prints of the appellant had not, admittedly, been obtained on 25.3.97. How was it then that an entry at S.No. 12 in Ex.P/27 came to be made in regard to them on 25.3.97? There is explanation to these discrepancies. 32. On further examination and scrutiny of the evidence, we find that the prosecution case further is that on the next morning i.e. 26.3.97 on the instruction of the Director, Police Finger Prints Bureau at Jaipur, who is stated to have received wireless/telephonic message from the SHO, Police Station Laxmangarh, PW/24 Anil Sinha, Senior Photographer and PW/17 Narender Singh S.I. at the said Bureau had reached the police station Laxmangarh, that on the instruction of Sampat Singh SHO, the sealed packet, containing the iron pipe and mentioned at S.No. 10 in the Malkhana entry Ex.P/27, was taken out of the Malkhana and the seals on the packet were broken by PW/15 Sarjeet and PW/16 Jai Prakash as per orders of the SHO, that the chance print on the iron pipe was developed with the help of some grey powder, that the appellant, who was then lodged in the police lock-up, was brought out of the lock up and his finger prints were obtained, that a memo of ail these proceedings (Ex. P/25) was prepared and the iron pipe, after putting it in a sealed packet which was sealed with the seal of the SHO, and the Specimen finger prints, nine in number, were delivered to the Malkhana 1/C to be kept in the Malkhana. (It has been mentioned above that the deposit of all these nine specimen finger prints had already been shown at S.No. 12 in the entry Ex.P/27 stated to have been made on the previous day i.e. 25.3.97). All that was done on 26.3.97. 33. From the facts mentioned above it is evident that the most incriminating evidence in this triple murder case was interfered with by Sampat Singh SHO in order to obtain corroborative/substantive evidence connecting the culprit with the crime. But curiously enough, neither any independent witness from the Bazar, in the midst of which the police station is admittedly located, nor from the Magistrate and/or the Tehsildar whose offices are located in that very compound, were associated in such proceedings. No reason for not having adopted that normal procedure and practice was also given by Sampat Singh SHO. But curiously enough, neither any independent witness from the Bazar, in the midst of which the police station is admittedly located, nor from the Magistrate and/or the Tehsildar whose offices are located in that very compound, were associated in such proceedings. No reason for not having adopted that normal procedure and practice was also given by Sampat Singh SHO. No entries of taking the sealed packet (containing the iron pipe) out of the Malkhana and/or re-depositing the same there after the proceedings were over, were either made in the Malkhana Register or any note to that effect was ever given therein by the Malkhana In-charge or Sampat Singh SHO. Neither any report with regard to the summoning of the officers from the Finger Print Bureau at Jaipur nor of the arrival at and/or departure from Police Station Laxmangarh was made in the Daily Diary kept at the Police Station for such purposes. Even the entry in the G.D. regarding the receipt of the telephonic message by Sampat Singh SHO about the tragedy was produced at the trial. 34. To add to above mentioned doubtful evidence is the fact that whereas PW/15 Sarjeet and PW/16 Jaiprakash constables at Police Station, Laxmangarh, who had broken the seal of the packet containing the guilty iron pipe on the orders of the SHO, stated that it was a hollow iron pipe, PW/17 Narender Singh S.I. Photographer from the Bureau is emphatic about the fact that it was a solid pipe, almost new and having shining on it. PW/24 Anil Sinha, the Senior Photographer from the Bureau also stated that it was a steel pipe. 35. The case put forth by the prosecution further is that eleven packets, in sealed condition, were given to PW/23 Murlidhar Constable to deliver the same to the State Forensic Science Laboratory at Jaipur and one sealed packet was later on sent through the same constable to the Finger Print Bureau on 2.5.97. This packet contained the specimen Finger prints obtained from the appellant and shown as deposited in the Malkhana on 25.3.97 at S.No. 12 in entry Ex.P/27, though those were stated to have been prepared by the officer of the Bureau on 26.3.97 as stated earlier. This packet contained the specimen Finger prints obtained from the appellant and shown as deposited in the Malkhana on 25.3.97 at S.No. 12 in entry Ex.P/27, though those were stated to have been prepared by the officer of the Bureau on 26.3.97 as stated earlier. It could not be explained to us as to why the officers of the Bureau did not take with them the specimen finger prints, prepared by them, for comparison with the chance finger print obtained from the iron pipe. The chance finger print and the Specimen finger prints had been prepared by the officers of the Bureau for examination and to report on their identical similarity and they were to prepare the desired report. They could have, in the normal course, taken those prints with them to the Bureau. Why were they left at the police station, and, if left, why were those not sent on 30.3.97 to the Bureau when other 11 sealed packets had been sent to the F.S.L., Jaipur when the office of the Bureau was also located at the same Place? These and other facts, as discussed above, leave a big question mark on the fairness of the investigation in this case. 36. To conclude the evidence of the chance finger print alleged to have been taken from the iron pipe, said to be the weapon of offence in this case, having identical similarity with the specimen finger prints of the appellant is not at all truthful and reliable and has to be rejected outright for the reasons stated above.THE BLOOD STAINED SHIRT OF THE APPELLANT 37. We see no necessity of repeating the same evidence on this point which we have referred to herein above and for the reason mentioned above we reject this piece of evidence as well against the appellant. 38. In the result we hold that neither of the two incriminating circumstances could be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, by cogent and convincing evidence. The chain of incriminating circumstances is not at all complete in this case so as to hold the appellant guilty of the offence under section 307 or 429 IPC. The prosecution has failed to prove either of the charges against the appellant. 39. The chain of incriminating circumstances is not at all complete in this case so as to hold the appellant guilty of the offence under section 307 or 429 IPC. The prosecution has failed to prove either of the charges against the appellant. 39. Before we part with the case we would like to invite the attention of the concerned authorities to the poorest standard of investigation in this case, that has ever come to the notice of this court in a case involving the loss of three human lives and of an innocent animal and which, if had been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant, could have, in all probability, ended in the loss the fourth human live also. Such cases require serious, thoughtful and painful efforts and action on the part of the investigating officer in the matter of collection of evidence, the requisite qualities which the investigating officer Sampat Singh SHO, is not at all seen to be possessing in this case. On the contrary be is noticed to be fabricating and manipulating incriminating evidence and destroying the value and worth of the relevant and material evidence whatever might have been collected by him. Whether such an officer may be entrusted with the duty of protecting the life and liberty of the citizens is a matter of serious consideration which we leave to the decision of and appropriate action, if necessary, by the authorities concerned. 40. We would like to add a few words for the guidance of the prosecuting officer and the trial judge. Their function is not to bring relevant and irrelevant evidence of formal or immaterial character on the record of the case. They should try to bring substantive evidence on record rather than proving those documents which are hit by the provision of Section 162 Cr.PC. They should be careful in examining, particularly, the investigating officer and should try to elicit material facts r elating to issues like fact found on spot, facts noticed at the places of arrest of accused and of recovery of incriminating articles. Facts stated in the Memos in order to be read in evidence, are required to be stated by the I.O. or the witnesses in their deposition and strict proof of relevant memos should be avoided. 41. Facts stated in the Memos in order to be read in evidence, are required to be stated by the I.O. or the witnesses in their deposition and strict proof of relevant memos should be avoided. 41. In the result, the judgment and order dated 30.6.98 as made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar are hereby set-aside and Ram Kumar appellant-accused is acquitted of the offence under section 302 and 429 IPC. Consequently, the reference made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, under section 366 Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected. The appeal preferred by the accused appellant Ram Kumar is allowed. Accused Ram Kumar is in Jail. He shall be set to his liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 42. A copy of this judgment and order shall be sent to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge as also to the Director General Police (Administration), and Home Commissioner Rajasthan, Jaipur for information and necessary action, if deemed necessary, in view of the discussion and observations made hereinabove. *******