JUDGMENT M.F. Saldanha, J.--We have heard the learned State Public Prosecutor on merits and while seriously considering the 3 strong circumstances which he is relying on, we need to point out that as far as the first of these, namely, the fact that PW-1 who is a shepherd and who is alleged to have been grazing the goats close-by when the deceased was stabbed allegedly by the Accused and who claims that he immediately went there and saw the accused carrying a 3 month old child leaving the place with blood stains on his person, is sufficient to be treated almost on par with an eye witness. What the learned State Public Prosecutor submits is that it is this very witness who has gone to the police and lodged the complaint and that therefore, his presence at this place cannot really be disputed. His submission is that if for whatever reason this witness gave evidence in a manner that justify his being treated as hostile that it is important for the Court to take note of the fact that when he has been cross-examined he has come back to his original statement. The submission is that this part of the evidence is good evidence regardless of the fact that the witness has wavered both before and after. 2. We have pointed out to the learned State Public Prosecutor that even though the few sentences on which he places reliance squarely implicate the accused that the Court cannot attach any high level of credibility or conclusiveness to evidence of this type because the witness has prevaricated both before and after this evidence. The law with regard to circumstantial evidence is well settled in so far as every individual circumstance has to be conclusively established and the circumstances taken collectively must have been pointing to only one irresistible conclusion, viz., killing of the accused. The circumstance No. 1 is therefore a weak circumstance. 3. As regards the second circumstance relied on by the learned Counsel, namely, the fact that there is evidence of the parents that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused who took her with him on the pretext of taking the child to the hospital. The circumstance No. 1 is therefore a weak circumstance. 3. As regards the second circumstance relied on by the learned Counsel, namely, the fact that there is evidence of the parents that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused who took her with him on the pretext of taking the child to the hospital. We have gone through this evidence and again, though there is some reference to the allegation that the accused was suspecting the deceased, the evidence does not conclusively indicate as to what was the nature of the suspicion and how serious it was. At the same time, we do accept that this circumstance is a strong circumstance against the accused. 4. Lastly, there is the evidence of recovery of the knife which appears to have been established. Normally, this would have been a very strong circumstance against the accused because the evidence indicates that the knife was stained with human blood. Unfortunately, there is nothing to indicate that this human blood was of the same blood group as of the deceased and consequently, though the circumstance has been proved it is really inconclusive. In view of this position, we find it difficult to interfere with the order of acquittal passed in favour of the accused. 5. Before parting with this judgment, it is very very necessary for us to correct a procedural lapse that is common in almost every single one of the cases of violence as this lapse is providing a escape route to the accused in matters of vital evidence. Even in those instances where clothes are found to be blood stained or the weapon is found to be stained with human blood and possibly even if a particular group matches the blood of the deceased the defense plea is that there is every possibility of the accused having sustained a bleeding injury and that this is the explanation for the presence of the blood. In order to rule out any wrong conclusions and in order to improve the evidentiary value of such material produced by the prosecution it is very necessary that in every one of these cases as a matter of regular routine the Investigating Officer be directed to obtain a specimen of the blood of the accused and to forward the same for necessary analysis along with the weapon, clothes etc. Once the blood group of the accused is ascertained then it would not be easy for the accused to get away by default through any false explanations. 6. A copy of this order to be forwarded by the Registrar General to the DG of Police with instructions that he shall bring this important direction to the attention of the Investigating Officers in the Police Department. His office shall report compliance. 7. Having regard to our findings as recorded above, the appeal fails on merits and stands disposed off.