Judgment : This appeal by the State and revision by the complainant are filed assailing the judgment, dated 30.06.2008, rendered by the Court of II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in S.C.No.484 of 2007. The sole accused therein was acquitted by the trail Court. The case of the prosecution was that the deceased, a boy of 11 years, by name, Somstallone, lost his parents in an accident, some time in October, 2002, and ever since then, he is residing with the complainant – PW.1 and her other family members. PW.1, who claims to be the mother of Samson - the father of the deceased boy, is said to have employed the accused as driver, on 08.01.2003. On the fateful day i.e. on 13.01.2003, the deceased was said to be playing with kites on the terrace of the third floor, and at 11.30 A.M., the accused has taken the boy out, and that the same was seen by a maidservant – PW.4, and a care taker-cum-driver of auto, LW.6. PW.1 is said to have gone out for a bank transaction and around noon, she received a phone call from her son - PW.3, that Somstallone was missing and she returned home by 2.30 P.M. After arrival of PW.1, a phone call is said to have been received by PW.3, from a stranger stating that he has kidnapped Somstallone and if a ransom of Rs.5,00,000/- is paid, by 5.00 P.M., at Hussainsagar, the boy would be returned, else, his dead body would float in the Hussainsagar itself. Soon thereafter, PW.1 filed a complaint – Ex.P.1, before P.S.Panjagutta. During the course of investigation, the police is said to have arrested the accused on 14.01.2003, and on the basis of the information given by him, they have located the dead body nearby a water tank at Kukatpally. The Investigating Officer (IO) – PW.3, caused the inquest and sent the body for post-mortem to PW.9, and has taken up further investigation. The prosecution has also stated that IO found human hair in the fist of the deceased and the same was compared with the hair samples taken from the accused. In the Forensic Report, marked as Ex.P.14, PW.11, is said to have opined that all the samples of the hair examined by him are similar in nature. The prosecution has also stated that IO found human hair in the fist of the deceased and the same was compared with the hair samples taken from the accused. In the Forensic Report, marked as Ex.P.14, PW.11, is said to have opined that all the samples of the hair examined by him are similar in nature. Another fact pleaded by the prosecution was that a metal button was found near the dead body of the deceased and when compared with the buttons on the shirt of the accused, it was found to be similar. With these and other related facts, the IO filed a charge-sheet and the trial Court accordingly framed charges against the accused. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 15 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.15 were filed. On behalf of the defence, suggestions were made to PWs.1, 3 and 4 with reference to their respective statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and they were marked as Ex.D.1 to 3. The shirt of the accused was taken as M.O.1, a button as M.O.2 and CDs., covering the scene of offence, were marked as M.O.3. The trial Court acquitted the accused, since the prosecution failed to prove its case. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel representing the complainant - PW.1, who filed the revision with the leave of the Court, submit that the trial Court omitted to take into account the important features of evidence, though circumstantial in nature. They submit that the fact that the accused has taken the deceased with him was spoken to by PW.4 and since she is not an interested witness, her evidence is trustworthy. They further submit that a strong circumstance in the case was the presence of the hair in the fist of the deceased and when the same was compared with the samples, collected from the head of the accused, they were found to be of similar nature, and thereby, a fool proof case is made out to link the incident with the accused. They also submit that the button (M.O.2), which was present nearby the dead body, was found to be from the shirt of the accused. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in KANBI KARSAN JADAV V. STATE OF GUJARAT AIR 1966 SC 821 . They also submit that the button (M.O.2), which was present nearby the dead body, was found to be from the shirt of the accused. Reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in KANBI KARSAN JADAV V. STATE OF GUJARAT AIR 1966 SC 821 . Sri N.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the accused, on the other hand, submits that the prosecution has foisted a false case against the accused. He submits that even from the evidence on record, it is clear that there was a scramble for the properties of the parents of the deceased herein, i.e. Somstallone, and PW.1 has gone to the extent of stating that Samson, father of the deceased boy, is her son, though, in fact, Samson is the son of the sister of the husband of PW.1. He submits that it was elicited from PW.1 in the cross-examination that by the time the complaint – Ex.P.1, was filed, the accused was very much in the house of PW.1, and no mention thereof was made, either in Ex.P.1, or in chief-examination of PW.1. He further submits that though PW.4, stated in her chief-examination that the accused, has taken the deceased at about 11.30 A.M., in the cross-examination, she has pleaded ignorance on every aspect spoken to by her in the chief-examination. As regards the forensic aspects, learned counsel submits that though PW.11 is said to have conducted the test of the samples, he has clearly admitted that he did not record any finding to the effect that the hair recovered from the fist of the deceased, and the samples collected and furnished to him, are from the same human being. It is also pleaded that there was nothing to indicate that the button said to have been recovered at the scene of offence was stained with blood, and in such an event, hardly there exists any forensic dimensions to that aspect. It is rather unfortunate that a boy of 11 years, who lost his parents and sister in an accident, was himself murdered few months thereafter. Still unfortunate is the manner in which the relations of his deceased parents were quarrelling for the property left by the deceased parents of the boy – Somstallone. The investigation into the case started with the submission of Ex.P.1 by PW.1. Still unfortunate is the manner in which the relations of his deceased parents were quarrelling for the property left by the deceased parents of the boy – Somstallone. The investigation into the case started with the submission of Ex.P.1 by PW.1. The contents of Ex.P.1 are brief, and it is thought fit, to reproduce the same: “I Mrs. Brigitte Micheal grand mother of Mr.Samstallone, s/o late Somson who lost his parents and sister on 27th October, 2002 and this child was staying with me then after with me. Today, date 13.01.2013 at 11.30 the child was playing kite on third floor and he never goes out of the gate anywhere. The new driver one Md.Gouse just join the duty on 10.01.2013 took the child with him at 11.30 and then after child is missing we get a call at 2.50 p.m. stating of lI have kidnap your child (Somstallone) pay 5 lakhs and take your child back at 5.00 p.m. come at Hussan Sagar. Please sir I request to take immediately action.” PW.1 did not claim that Samson is her son. Further, there is no mention about the accused i.e. Md.Ghouse, being present in the house by the time the complaint was submitted. In her deposition as PW.1, she however stated that Samson was his eldest son. The relevant portion reads: “…My eldest son by name Samson who is the father of the deceased, his wife-Houleen and their daughter-Nancy died in an accident that occurred in the month of October, 2002. Since then my grand son Stalin had been staying with me.” Normally, one does not suspect the claim of a woman when she says that she is the mother of a particular individual. In the cross-examination also, PW.1 stated as under: “Samson the father of the deceased is my natural son and the suggestion contra is false.” PW.2, by name, Michael Christoper, is the son of PW.1. In the cross-examination, he stated: “Samson is my natural brother. It is true I stated in my statement before the police that the deceased Sam-Stalin is the grand son of elder sister of my father. It is true the father of the deceased Stalin, is the son of my father’s elder sister.” Other contradictions in the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were pointed out. It is true I stated in my statement before the police that the deceased Sam-Stalin is the grand son of elder sister of my father. It is true the father of the deceased Stalin, is the son of my father’s elder sister.” Other contradictions in the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were pointed out. Even though the plea of PW.1 that Samson, her eldest son, was demolished through the cross-examination of PW.2, PW.3, another son of PW.1, stated in his chief-examination as under: “The deceased boy Stalin is the son of my elder brother. Since the parents of the deceased boy Stalin, died in a road accident, he used to stay with us in our house.” This witness was also confronted with the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. However, he denied the statement made by him. He said: “…I did not state before police in my statement that Samson, the father of the deceased boy is the son of the elder sister of my father, as in Ex.D.2. It is not true to suggest that the deceased boy is not the son of my elder brother.” It was few months before the incident, that the parents of Somstallone, the deceased boy herein, died in an accident and a specific question was put in the cross-examination of PW.1 as to whether any petition was filed by them claiming compensation. She replied that no petition claiming compensation for the death of her son, his wife and their daughter was filed. However, uniformly, PW.1 and her two sons, PWs.2 and 3 and another son – LW.2, who was not examined, stated that it is they, who arranged, the finances for filing an O.P., claiming compensation for the death of the parents of the deceased herein and that the claim petition was filed on behalf of Somstallone through a lady, by name Violet. This was confronted to PW.1, as Ex.D.1. However, she denied it. The record also discloses that there was a scramble for custody of deceased boy, Somstallone, and the house of his parents was occupied by the father and mother of his deceased mother. Disputes are also said to have been taken to the religious leaders. It is by keeping this background in view, that the case needs to be examined further. There are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. Disputes are also said to have been taken to the religious leaders. It is by keeping this background in view, that the case needs to be examined further. There are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. One circumstance pleaded by the prosecution is the theory of last seen. PW.4, maidservant of PW.1, is said to have seen the accused, taking the deceased with him at 11.30 A.M., from the terrace of the building. Though LW.6, a care taker-cum-auto driver of PW.1, is said to have seen the accused taking the deceased in front of the gate, he was not examined as a witness. PW.4 did not withstand the cross-examination. The relevant portion reads: “The police examined and recorded my statement on the next day of the incident at the house of PWs.1 to 3. It is true I did not state before police that while proceeding to the terrace, I noticed the accused taking away the deceased boy Stallin. I did not state before police that while I was drying the clothes on front side after their wash, noticed the accused along with deceased boy as in Ex.D.3.” Added to this, the failure to examine LW.6 would certainly render that circumstantial evidence unreliable. The next circumstantial evidence is in relation to recoveries at the scene of offence. In the inquest report, marked as Ex.P.10, it was mentioned that human hair was found in the left fist of the dead body. That was preserved as item No.8, mentioned in Ex.P.13. Suspecting that the hair may be that of the accused, the permission of the Court was obtained and the sample of hair was drawn from the head of the accused. That is said to be marked as Item No.5. The record also discloses that cut hair was also taken as a sample, item No.7. All the three samples were examined by PW.11. In the report, marked as Ex.P.13, it was mentioned “hair in item Nos.5, 7 and 8 are possessing similar morphological characters.” It is only when the hair found at the scene of occurrence and the sample recovered from the accused are found from the same origin, and from the same human being, that an inference can be drawn about the involvement of the concerned person. In the cross-examination of PW.11, the following was elicited: “Biochemical and immunological examinations include microscopic examination. In the cross-examination of PW.11, the following was elicited: “Biochemical and immunological examinations include microscopic examination. It is not true to suggest that microscopic examination is different. It is true Ex.P.13 does not disclose the origin of the hair, examined as items 5, 7 & 8. It is true plucked hair and cut hair are having different characteristics. It is true I did not mention whether Item No.5, is cut or plucked hair. It is not true to suggest that I did not examine Items 5, 7 & 8 thoroughly and my report is not clear. It is true in my report, the length and shaft diameters of Items 5, 7 & 8 are not mentioned. Witness adds, it is quite common for us not to furnish the said particulars. It is true in Ex.P.13, I did not mention whether the hair in items 5, 7 & 8 is of human origin and the sex. The colour of the hair also is not mentioned. It is not true to suggest that under morphological characters every human hair is similar. It is not true to suggest that Items 5, 7 & 8 do not possess similar morphological characters.” Once the witness has stated that he did not mention that samples 5, 7 and 8 are of the same human origin and the sex, the whole endeavour in undertaking the forensic exercise has become futile. Though it is stated that a button was recovered at the scene of offence and on comparison of the same with the one on the shirt – M.O.1 of the accused, it was found to be similar, there are several factors that persuade us to ignore it. The first is that neither the button recovered from the scene of offence, nor the shirt of the accused were found to be stained with blood. The only conclusion is that the buttons are of the same brand. The mere fact that the button of a particular brand is found at the scene of offence cannot lead to any conclusion. The reason is that the buttons are manufactured in thousands, and if the reasoning suggested by the prosecution is accepted, every person, who wears a shirt with buttons of that brand, is prone to be suspected of committing the offence. The reason is that the buttons are manufactured in thousands, and if the reasoning suggested by the prosecution is accepted, every person, who wears a shirt with buttons of that brand, is prone to be suspected of committing the offence. In Kanbi Karsan Jadav’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the presence of human hair and a button at the scene of offence can be treated as a piece of circumstantial evidence. That, however, is a case, where the forensic analysis revealed that the two samples of hair were found to be of same origin and the button was tainted with blood. Hence, that precedent would not be of any help to the prosecution. Another weakness, which is found in the case of the prosecution, is that though the accused was said to have been arrested on 14.01.2013 itself, he was not sent for any medical examination. The reason is that in the confession he is said to have stated that he received injuries, when the deceased hit him with wooden planks and that his hair was plucked by the deceased when he is being strangulated by the rope. No effort whatever was made in that direction. Hence, we do not find any error in the judgment of the trial Court and the appeal and revision are accordingly dismissed.