JUDGMENT Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. On the intervening night of 21st and 22nd of April, 2006 in Bansoor near village Moja Todiya Ka Bas in a house jointly owned by family of Meena Ram (P.W.2) the complainant, his mother Smt. Jadawali Devi was murdered by way of strangulation. On 22.4.2006 at about 6:15 AM, Meena Ram (P.W.2) along with his neighbour Rohitash (P.W.1) learnt about the death of his mother Jadawali Devi. They further found that both her feet were also amputated. Immediately thereafter, on 22.4.2006, at about 7:15 AM, Meena Ram (P.W.2) presented a written report (Exhibit-P/9) before SHO, Police Station Bansoor regarding registration of the case. 2. In written report (Exhibit-P/9) the complainant stated that his mother Smt. Jadawali Devi was residing in a joint house in the fields. On 22.4.2006, at about 6:15 AM, he learnt in the street that somebody has murdered his mother. He along with Rohitash (P.W.1) came to their house built in the fields and found that on the back of the house, dead body of his mother was lying. Her both feet were amputated and from both feet two silver anklets each, one neckband and one bracelet each from the hands, in all bearing 2 Kg of silver were missing. Silver ornaments were not found on her body. In the complaint it was stated that some unidentified persons after committing murder of his mother and amputating both feet had taken away silver anklets, one neckband and bracelets. Near dead body, one axe, one Kurpa (short handle cutting tool with flag raised, used for digging soil) and one board of wood, stained with blood were found. 3. The written report (Exhibit-P/9) through Constable Dharampal Singh (P.W.15) was sent from the spot to the police station. ASI Rameshwar Dayal, in absence of Hanuman Singh was incharge of police station. He registered a formal FIR (Exhibit-P/10) bearing No.105/2006 at Police Station Bansoor, District Alwar for the offences under Sections 460 IPC. During investigation of the said FIR, the investigating agency nominated Lala Ram s/o Chothmal, Raju s/o Ram Avtar and Balli @ Balbir s/o Amilal, as accused. All the three accused were sent for the trial. During the course of the trial, Balli @ Balbir expired and proceedings were dropped against him. 4. During investigation of the said FIR, the investigating agency nominated Lala Ram s/o Chothmal, Raju s/o Ram Avtar and Balli @ Balbir s/o Amilal, as accused. All the three accused were sent for the trial. During the course of the trial, Balli @ Balbir expired and proceedings were dropped against him. 4. The court of Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Behror, District Alwar vide impugned judgment dated 29.3.2014 convicted both the appellants Lala Ram and Raju for the offences under Sections 302 and 460 IPC and vide a separate order of even date, sentenced them as under:- "U/s 302 IPC to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months additional imprisonment. U/s 460 IPC to undergo ten years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months additional imprisonment. 5. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentence, Raju instituted D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 592/2014, whereas Lal Ram preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 444/2015. Both the appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction rendered and order of sentence passed by the trial court. It is prayed in the appeals filed that the appellants be acquitted of all the charges. Since both the appeals assail the common judgment, we shall decide both the appeals together. 6. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence, there being no eyewitness account. To secure the conviction of the appellants, the prosecution has relied upon the following circumstances: (i) Foot molds lifted from the spot, taking of specimen molds of the foot of the accused and report submitted by the expert to the effect that the foot molds lifted from the spot tally with the specimen foot molds. (ii) Lifting of chance prints from the spot, taking specimen fingerprints of the accused and report of FSL regarding matching of the fingerprints. (iii) Recoveries from the place of occurrence. (iv) Recoveries of ornaments from the accused in pursuance of disclosure statement suffered by them. (v) Recovery of blood stained clothes from the accused, which purportedly were worn by them at the place and time of the occurrence. 7. We shall examine each circumstance separately by detailing evidence gathered by the investigating agency, the mode of proving these circumstances by referring to the testimony of the witnesses and requisite documents. (v) Recovery of blood stained clothes from the accused, which purportedly were worn by them at the place and time of the occurrence. 7. We shall examine each circumstance separately by detailing evidence gathered by the investigating agency, the mode of proving these circumstances by referring to the testimony of the witnesses and requisite documents. While taking note of each incriminating circumstance, we shall also note the arguments raised, we shall analyse each circumstance and discuss whether the prosecution has succeeded to prove the same or not. Before we do so, first we shall take note of the medical evidence. 8. Dr. Daya Ram (P.W.8) along with Dr. Sugan Chand (P.W.14) constituted a Medical Board and conducted autopsy on the dead body of Jadawali Devi deceased wife of Kanhaiyalal aged 93 years. In the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/14), doctor had noticed the following injuries on the person of the deceased:- "Dry bruise mark on the neck, multiple abrasions marks linear on the right side and two on the left side, mark extending on both sides, multiple haematoma of dark red colour, no ligature mark, ligature mark is horizontal in nature upto nape. There was complete amputation of both legs by multiple injuries having sharp weapon; right leg amputated just above the ankle and left leg amputated three inch above the ankle. All injuries were ante mortem in nature." 9. In the opinion of the Board, the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation and same was ante mortem in nature. The duration between death and post mortem was six to eighteen hours. During internal examination, doctor found both lungs to be congested. Thus, it is proved that the deceased had died as a result of violence and it was a case of homicide. 10. Vishamber (P.W.3) and Durga Prasad (P.W.5) had attested the inquest proceedings (Exhibit-P/2), and identified the dead body to be of Jadawali Devi. Evidence of Foot molds: 11. Hanuman Singh (P.W.19) on 22.4.2006 was posted as Station House Officer of Police Station Bansoor. After registration of the case, he had proceeded to the spot. He has stated in the court that he had lifted the blood stained earth and sample soil from the spot vide memo Exhibit-P/4. He had also lifted footprints of suspicious persons from the spot vide memo Exhibit-P/6. After registration of the case, he had proceeded to the spot. He has stated in the court that he had lifted the blood stained earth and sample soil from the spot vide memo Exhibit-P/4. He had also lifted footprints of suspicious persons from the spot vide memo Exhibit-P/6. Exhibit-P/6 was prepared on 22.4.2006 at 4:00 PM, whereas the occurrence had taken place on the intervening night of 21st and 22nd April, 2006. Thus, foot molds were lifted after more than twelve hours of the occurrence and nine hours after the registration of the case. A perusal of memo Exhibit-P/6 reveals that in presence of Rohitash (not examined), Girraj Prasad s/o Surajbhan (P.W.6), ASI Pratap Singh (P.W.11) and Head Constable Prahlad Swaroop (P.W.12), both of MOB branch, four foot molds were lifted, out of which one foot mold was of either shoe, or chappal or sandal, whereas three molds were of bare feet. 12. Girraj Prasad (P.W.6) and Ramesh Chand (P.W.9) both admitted that police had also called the dog squad. 13. Ramesh Chand (P.W.9) stated that when he reached at the spot, about one thousand people had gathered there. He had reached at the spot at about 8:00 AM. At that time, dead body of his grandmother was lying in the field. Police had kept the mob gathered there at a distance of 100 mtrs. At the spot, no crop was standing. The police, before his arrival had preserved the foot marks. It will be apposite to reproduce the following portion from the statement of Ramesh Chand (P.W.9), as under:- lqcg 8 cts ds djhc igqap x;s FksA ml oDr gekjh nknh dh yk'k ?kj ls nwj [ksr esa iM+h FkhA iqfyl us gekjh nknh dh yk'k ls mu yksxksa dks nwj dj j[kk Fkk ,oa 100 ehVj dh nwjh rd [kM+s Fks tks yk'k ds ikl ugha FksA ogka ij dksbZ Qly vknh ugha FksA [ksr esa [kkstksa ds fu'kku Fks tks gekjs vkus ls iwoZ iqfyl us nck j[ks FksA gekjs ifjokj ds lHkh yksx nknh ds ikl esa pys x;s FksA 14. It is difficult to believe that till 4:00 PM and before arrival of the police, number of persons had not walked near the place where dead body was lying. If the people were loitering around, foot marks of various persons will be present at the spot. 15. It is difficult to believe that till 4:00 PM and before arrival of the police, number of persons had not walked near the place where dead body was lying. If the people were loitering around, foot marks of various persons will be present at the spot. 15. Pratap Singh, ASI (P.W.11) stated that when he reached at the spot, four footprints were preserved by the police by keeping Parat (a utensil used for preparing dough) over the foot molds. This witness further stated that on 28.4.2006, accused Lala Ram, Raju and Balli gave their footprints on plaster of paris. This witness, however, admitted that the place of occurrence is an open place in fileds and is accessible to all. This witness further stated to be correct that during his presence, police had not prepared any document. 16. Prahlad Swaroop (P.W.12) deposed in the court that on 28.4.2006, footprints and fingerprints of the accused were taken inside the police station. The accused were taken out of lock-up and they were made to walk on sand and thereafter, footprints and fingerprints were developed. Both Pratap Singh (P.W.11) and Prahlad Swaroop (P.W.12) had not proved any memo or document on record to say that in their presence foot molds and fingerprints were taken into possession by the police. 17. Lala Ram vide memo Exhibit-P/25, Raju vide memo Exhibit-P/26 and Balli @ Balbir vide memo Exhibit-P/27 were arrested on 23.4.2006. Their footprints and fingerprints were taken into possession by the police on 28.4.2006. Memo Exhibit-P/28 was prepared on 28.4.2006 with regard to taking into possession the footprints of the accused. The said memo was attested by Constable Dharampal Singh (P.W.15) and Daya Ram (P.W.8). Curiously enough, memo though was prepared in presence of Prahlad Swaroop (P.W.12) and Pratap Singh (P.W.11) same has not been attested by them. 18. Constable Dharampal Singh (P.W.15) in the court stated that Head Constable Prahlad Swaroop (P.W.12) after lifting foot molds had presented the same before the Investigating Officer. There is no evidence on record that before foot molds of the accused were taken into possession on 28.4.2006, the foot molds lifted from the spot on 22.4.2006 were preserved separately. 19. A Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us, (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.), was a member, in the case of Sunder & Ors. There is no evidence on record that before foot molds of the accused were taken into possession on 28.4.2006, the foot molds lifted from the spot on 22.4.2006 were preserved separately. 19. A Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us, (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.), was a member, in the case of Sunder & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1011/2012, 2015(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 502, relied upon rule 6.26 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 to hold that if footprints are not lifted before the Magistrate, they cannot be relied. It will be apposite here to reproduce the following portion from the case of Sunder (supra), as under:- "Rule 6.26 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 is as under:- "27. 6.26. Importance of footprints and track evidence.- (1) Footprints are of the first importance in the investigation of crime. For this reason all officers in-charge of police stations shall instruct their subordinates as well as all chaukidars that, when any crime occurs all footprints and other marks existing on the scene of the crime should be carefully preserved and a watch set to see that as few persons as possible are permitted to visit the scene of the crime. (2) When it is desired to produce evidence of the identity of tracks found at the scene of or in connection with a crime, the procedure for securing the record of such evidence shall be similar to that prescribed in rule 7.31 for the identification of suspects. The attendance of a magistrate of the highest available status, shall be secured or, if that is impossible, independent witnesses of reliable character shall be summoned. In the presence of the magistrate or other witnesses, and in conformity with the reasonable directions which they may give, ground shall be prepared for the tests. On this ground the suspect or suspects, and not less than five other persons shall be required to walk. The magistrate, or in his absence the police officer conducting the test, shall record the names of all these persons and the order in which they enter the test ground. While these preparations are preceding the tracker or other witness, who is to be asked to identify the tracks shall prevented from approaching the place or seeing any of the persons concerned in the tests. While these preparations are preceding the tracker or other witness, who is to be asked to identify the tracks shall prevented from approaching the place or seeing any of the persons concerned in the tests. When all preparations are complete the witness shall be called up and required to examine both the original tracks and those on the test ground, and thereafter to make his statement. The magistrate, or in his absence, the police officer conducting the test shall record the statement of the witness as to the grounds of his claim to identify the tracks, and shall put such other questions as he may deem proper to test his bona fides. The officer investigating the case and his assistants shall be allowed no share in the conduct the test. Tracks found, which it is desired to test by comparison as above, shall be protected immediately on discovery, and their nature, measurements and peculiarities shall be recorded at the time in the case diary of the investigating officer. The details of the preparation of the test ground and the actions required of the suspect and those with whom his tracks are mixed must vary according to the circumstances of the case. The officer conducting the test in consultation with the magistrate or independent witnesses, shall so arrange that the identifying witness may be given a fair chance, but under the strictest safeguards, of comparing with the original tracks, other tracks made on similar ground and in similar conditions. (3) The evidence of a tracker or other expert described in the foregoing rule can be substantiated by the preparation of moulds of other footprints of the criminal or criminals found at the scene of the crime. In making moulds for production as evidence the following precautions should be observed:- (a) The footprints found on scene of the crime must be pointed out to the reliable witnesses at the time and these same witnesses must be present during the preparation of the moulds. (b) The latter must also be signed or marked by the witnesses and the officer preparing them while still setting. (c) After the procedure described in Sub-rule (2) above has been completed a mould should be prepared in the presence of the Magistrate or witnesses of one of the foot prints of the suspect made in their presence. (b) The latter must also be signed or marked by the witnesses and the officer preparing them while still setting. (c) After the procedure described in Sub-rule (2) above has been completed a mould should be prepared in the presence of the Magistrate or witnesses of one of the foot prints of the suspect made in their presence. This mould should be signed by the Magistrate or witnesses when still setting. (d) Both moulds should be carefully preserved for production in court for identification by witnesses and comparison by the Court." 28. Thus, Rule 6.26 (3) requires that prior to taking the impression of the footprints and before making a mould, the footprints found on scene of the crime must be pointed out to reliable witnesses. However, in the present case neither Prahlad Singh (P.W.22), nor Jagdish (P.W.13) states that the footprints of the alleged accused persons were pointed out to them. According to Rule 6.26 (3)(c), the moulds of the footprints should be made either in front of Magistrate, or in front of witnesses. The said moulds have to be signed either by the Magistrate, or the witnesses. According to Rule 6.26 (3) (d), during the course of trial the mould should be produced in the court for identification by the witnesses and comparison by the court. However, in the present case, according to Prahlad (P.W.22), the footprints were not lifted from the place of the occurrence in front of a magistrate. They were, in fact, lifted in front of Jagdish. But Jagdish is not an independent witness as he is one of the sons of the deceased. Furthermore, according to Jagdish (P.W.13), the moulds of the footprints were not produced before the trial court during his testimony for his identification and for comparison by the court. Therefore, the procedure established by the rules has not been followed. Moreover, the second recovery witness, Kunwar Singh, has not been produced by the prosecution. Thus, a material witness has been withheld by the prosecution. Therefore, considering the contradictions between the witnesses, considering the contradiction between the testimonies of the witnesses and the site plan, considering the fact that the procedure prescribed by law has not been followed, considering the conduct of the prosecution in withholding an independent witness of recovery from the court, the recovery of the footprints from the scene of the crime cannot be believed. According to Prahlad (P.W.22), even when he had taken the footprints of the appellants in the police custody, the Magistrate was not present. Section 4 and Section 5 of the Act of 1920 are as under:- "4. Taking of measurements, etc., of non-convicted persons.Any person who has been arrested in connection with an offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year or upwards shall, if so required by a police officer, allow his measurements to be taken in the prescribed manner. 5. Power of Magistrate to order a person to be measured or photographed.If a Magistrate is satisfied that, for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898) [now, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)] it is expedient to direct any person to allow his measurements or photograph to be taken, he may make an order to that effect, and in that case the person to whom the order relates shall be produced or shall attend at the time and place specified in the order and shall allow his measurements or photograph to be taken, as the case may be, by a police officer: Provided that no order shall be made directing any person to be photographed except by a Magistrate of the first class: Provided further, that no order shall be made under this section unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding." 30. Section 5 prescribes the manner in which the measurement of a non-convicted person is to be taken. Therefore, before a foot impression of an accused can be taken during the course of investigation, the procedure as laid down by Section 5 has to be followed. A magistrate has to be satisfied in order to direct the person to allow his measurements or photographs to be taken. The said order has to be passed by the magistrate of the First Class. However, in the present case no such order has been passed by the magistrate of the First Class directing the appellants to allow the police to take their footprints. 31. According to Rule 6.26 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 the procedure for securing the record of such footprint shall be similar to that prescribed for holding a T.I. parade of suspects under Rule 7.31. 31. According to Rule 6.26 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 the procedure for securing the record of such footprint shall be similar to that prescribed for holding a T.I. parade of suspects under Rule 7.31. This rule prescribes an elaborate procedure for holding a test identification of the footprints. However, in the present case, the police neither secured the attendance of a Magistrate, nor associated witnesses of reliable character, nor followed the procedure prescribed by this rule. For, according to Exhibit-P.34 the footprints were lifted before two Police Constable, namely Dayanand and Ghamsi Ram. The investigating officer, Gopal Singh (P.W.30) has not given any explanation for non-procuring of the Magistrate of the highest rank, and for non-procuring of a witness of reliable character. 32. Further, Ghamsi Ram (P.W.23) admits in his cross-examination that "the names of the accused were not tagged with the impression of their foot. It is true that at the time of taking the foot impression by Exhibit-P.34, only police personnel were present and no outside person was present at that time. No person from outside was called. It is true that the foot impressions which were taken are not before me in the court. It is true when the foot impressions were taken, a Magistrate was not present at that time". 20. In view of the law laid in Sunder's case (supra) and various circumstances enumerated by us, it is not safe to rely upon the circumstances of foot molds lifted from the spot, specimen foot molds prepared as it cannot be ruled out that both were not prepared at the same time. Non lifting of specimen foot molds in presence of the Magistrate and independent person compel us to discard this circumstance. Now we shall deal with the evidence of specimen fingerprints of the accused. 21. ASI, Pratap Singh (P.W.11) in the court stated that on calling of the Investigating Officer, he had reached at the spot. At a distance of 100 mtrs from the place of occurrence, near a Sheesham Tree, two glasses of steal and one glass quarter iOok of liquor were lying. He had taken chance prints from these articles. On 22.4.2006, he had also taken fingerprints of accused Lala Ram, Raju and Balli. At a distance of 100 mtrs from the place of occurrence, near a Sheesham Tree, two glasses of steal and one glass quarter iOok of liquor were lying. He had taken chance prints from these articles. On 22.4.2006, he had also taken fingerprints of accused Lala Ram, Raju and Balli. As per report of Director of Fingerprints Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Exhibit-P/73), chance fingerprints lifted from two glasses and glass quarter of liquor tally with the specimen fingerprints of the accused. It is to be noted that chance fingerprints were lifted on 22.4.2006, whereas specimen fingerprints of the accused were taken into possession by the investigating agency on 28.4.2006 in the police station. Chance fingerprints lifted from the spot were not sent to FSL earlier. Thus, chance fingerprints and specimen fingerprints together reached FSL on 31.7.2006, after more than three months of taking into possession of specimen fingerprints of the accused. Why for a period of three months they were kept by the Investigating Officer with himself no explanation has been furnished. No independent witness has been examined to assure this Court that the chance fingerprints and the specimen fingerprints were not taken into possession at the same time. Specimen fingerprints ought to have been drawn in the presence of the Magistrate. 22. This Court in the case of Vikram @ Vikky v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 888/2009 decided on 17.7.2015 relied upon Paramasivam @ Paraman @ Kottiyan and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu [J.T. 2002 (8) SC 214] to hold that no reliance can be placed on the statement of police personnel where fingerprints of the accused were not taken under the orders of the Magistrate. It will be pertinent to reproduce the following portion of the judgment, as under:- "In these circumstances, we cannot rely on the statement of the police personnel especially when finger prints of the accused were not taken under the orders of the Magistrate. In Paramasivam @ Paraman @ Kottiyan and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu [J.T. 2002 (8) SC 214] it was held as under:- "4. Before proceeding further, however, the learned advocate placed a strong reliance on a decision of this Court in Mahmeed v. State of U.P., 1976 CRI.L.J. 10 as regards the finger prints and its admissibility wherein this Court in paragraph 16 of the report was pleased to observe as below : "16. Before proceeding further, however, the learned advocate placed a strong reliance on a decision of this Court in Mahmeed v. State of U.P., 1976 CRI.L.J. 10 as regards the finger prints and its admissibility wherein this Court in paragraph 16 of the report was pleased to observe as below : "16. Furthermore, the specimen fingerprints of the appellant were not taken before or under the order of a magistrate in accordance with section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act. This is another suspicious feature of the conduct of investigation. It has not been explained why this magistrate was kept out of the picture." 5. Admittedly there has been no magistrate's presence or order in that regard and in that view this Court has expressed that in terms of the statutory provisions, the question of relying thereon would not arise. Reliance on PW 16 by the High Court thus possibly cannot be had by reason of the non-admissibility as noticed by this Court in Mahmood (supra)." A similar view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Aman and another v. State of Rajasthan [ AIR 1997 SC 2960 ]." 23. Since in the present case, specimen foot molds of the accused and fingerprints were not taken into possession in the presence of the Magistrate, both are liable to be ignored and cannot be taken into consideration. Recoveries from the spot and Ornaments: 24. Rohitash (P.W.1) deposed in the court that in the morning, he had gone to serve tea to Jadawali Devi deceased and found that she was lying near the well and her both feet were amputated. From her feet anklets, from hands bracelets and from neck neckband were missing. At the 90 feet distance of her Kotari, one toe of the foot was lying and at a some distance of the same another toe was lying. Near the dead body, one axe, one burnt plank of wood and Khurpa were lying. On the western side of the dead body, two glass of steel and one quarter (?????) of alcohol were lying. Meena Ram (P.W.2) informed the police. The police arrived at the spot and took into possession axe, wooden plank, Khurpa, glass, and quarter of liquor. The police had lifted blood stained soil, prepared the site plan of the spot. On the western side of the dead body, two glass of steel and one quarter (?????) of alcohol were lying. Meena Ram (P.W.2) informed the police. The police arrived at the spot and took into possession axe, wooden plank, Khurpa, glass, and quarter of liquor. The police had lifted blood stained soil, prepared the site plan of the spot. Police took into possession axe vide memo Exhibit-P/5, vide memo Exhibit-P/6 the police lifted footprints and vide memo Exhibit-P/7 lifted chance fingerprints. The police also took into possession quarter of liquor, two glass of steel vide memo Exhibit-P/8. Khurpa was Article-1, Axe Article-2, Wooden Plank Article-3, Glass Article-4, quarter Article-5, Plastic chappal Article-6, Hawai Chappal Article-7, foot prints Article-8, white chappal Article- 9 and 10, were seized by the police. 25. To similar effect is the statement of Meena Ram (P.W.2) the complainant, Girraj Prasad (P.W.6), Anil Kumar (P.W.7), Ramesh Chand (P.W.9) and investigating officer Hanuman Singh (P.W.19), SHO Police Station Bansoor. 26. Hanuman Singh (P.W.19) the investigating officer had also stated in the court that he had made site plan of the spot. He had made memo regarding the description of dead body (Exhibit-P/3), he had lifted blood stained soil and simple soil vide memo Exhibit-P/4. He had also taken into possession one axe, Khurpa and wooden plank in the presence of Meena Ram (P.W.2). He had also lifted foot molds of suspected persons vide memo Exhibit-P/6 from the spot. He had also lifted one quarter and two glass left by the suspected persons. 27. Lala Ram accused was arrested on 23.4.2006 vide memo Exhibit-P/25. The arrest memo Exhibit-P/25 was attested by Prahalad and Dharmapal Singh (P.W.15). Raju was also arrested on 23.4.2006 vide arrest memo Exhibit-P/26. The said memo was also attested by Dharmapal Singh (P.W.15). After the arrest, during interrogation, Raju suffered disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act on 29.4.2006. In the said disclosure statement, the accused stated that he had kept concealed one silver anklet and one bracelet in his residential house. In pursuance of the disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/61), Raju got recovered the above said articles vide memo Exhibit-P/25, which was attested by Balwant Surela (P.W.10). 28. Lala Ram on 29.4.2006 suffered disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/62) and stated that he had kept concealed silver neckband in his residential house and in pursuance thereof, he got recovered silver neckband vide memo Exhibit-P/21. In pursuance of the disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/61), Raju got recovered the above said articles vide memo Exhibit-P/25, which was attested by Balwant Surela (P.W.10). 28. Lala Ram on 29.4.2006 suffered disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/62) and stated that he had kept concealed silver neckband in his residential house and in pursuance thereof, he got recovered silver neckband vide memo Exhibit-P/21. The said memo is attested by Balwant Surela (P.W.10). 29. The third accused Balli @ Balbir who died during the trial suffered disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/63) and stated that he had kept concealed one silver anklet and one silver bracelet in his residential house. In pursuance of disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/63), he got recovered the aforesaid articles vide recovery memo Exhibit-P/20 on 30.4.2006 in the presence of Balwant Surela (P.W.10). 30. Balwant Surela (P.W.10) while appearing in the court has deposed that on 21.4.2006 from Alwar he came to Bansoor to visit his uncle Hajari Prasad. The police personnels were present in street. Accused namely Lala Ram, Raju and Balli @ Balbir were sitting in a police jeep. Police informed him that all the three accused intend to get the stolen articles recovered. This witness stated that Balli @ Balbir from his house vide Exhibit-P/19 got recovered silver ornaments. Thereafter, they went to the house of Lala Ram, who vide memo Exhibit-P/21 got recovered neckband. Thereafter, Raju took them to his house and vide memo Exhibit-P/23 got recovered one silver anklet. The above said articles were presented before Dhuda Ram (P.W.20), who on 17.7.2006 was posted as Tehsildar, Bansoor. This witness stated that vide memo Exhibit-P/12, Meena Ram (P.W.2) identified silver anklets and bracelet recovered from the accused Balli @ Balbir. He also identified neckband got recovered at the instance of Lala Ram. This witness further stated that next day Badri Prasad (P.W.13) identified ornaments recovered at the instance of Lala Ram. This witness further stated that neckband was also identified by Anil Kumar (P.W.7) son of Badri Prasad. This witness proved the identification proceedings (Exhibit-P/69). This witness stated that Anil Kumar (P.W.7) also identified silver anklet and bracelet recovered at the instance of accused. This witness stated that Badri Prasad (P.W.13) had also identified the Articles vide memo Exhibit-P/71. Thereafter, the ornaments were handed over to SHO. 31. Dhuda Ram (P.W.20) in the court deposed that the case property i.e. silver jewelery has not been produced in the court. This witness stated that Badri Prasad (P.W.13) had also identified the Articles vide memo Exhibit-P/71. Thereafter, the ornaments were handed over to SHO. 31. Dhuda Ram (P.W.20) in the court deposed that the case property i.e. silver jewelery has not been produced in the court. We may notice here that none of the disclosure statement leading to recovery of silver ornaments is attested by any independent witness. The disclosure statement (Exhibit-P/61, Exhibit-P/62 and Exhibit-P/63) are not attested by any independent witness. 32. A Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.) was a Member relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 2002 Supreme Court 3040, held in the case of Rameshwar and Dinesh @ Pillu v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Criminal Appeal No.158/2010, decided on 10.11.2014, as under :- "Having appreciated the evidence of the witness, it is to be noted that disclosure statement Ex-P/22 as made by Munesh is not attested by any witness what to say of any independent witness. Ex.P/22 is recorded on 31st July, 2006 at 11 P.M. It is only signed by SHO Police Station, Bhusawar Distt. Bharatpur. It was held in Harjit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab AIR 2002 Supreme Court 3040 that disclosure statement should be signed by independent person and Investigating officer should not associate any eye witness with the recovery memos. In the present case, no witness was associated at the time when disclosure statement was made. It is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the disclosure statement was made voluntary without any duress or coercion. To justify voluntary character of disclosure statement, it ought to be recorded in the presence of witnesses, it is to be noted that Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act is an exception to Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act which says that nothing stated to police is admissible in evidence. Since Section 27 carve out an exception, it is necessary that prosecution must show some material to the Court to be satisfied that same was not fabricated, therefore, it is necessary that it should have been made in presence of some witnesses." 33. The occurrence in the present case had taken place on 22.4.2006. The disclosure statements were suffered by three accused regarding concealment of ornaments on 29.4.2006 and the articles were recovered on 30.4.2006. The occurrence in the present case had taken place on 22.4.2006. The disclosure statements were suffered by three accused regarding concealment of ornaments on 29.4.2006 and the articles were recovered on 30.4.2006. The identification of the ornaments was conducted on 17.7.2006. Thus, the identification proceedings was carried after about two months and seventeen days. There is no justification with the police that once articles were in their possession, on 30.4.2006, as to why identification proceedings were postponed for a good period of two months and seventeen days. It cannot be ruled out that during the said period, ornaments may have been shown to the family members of the complainant. 34. Recovery of ornaments is witnessed by Sultan and Balwant Surela (P.W.10). Sultan has not been examined by the prosecution. Balwant Surela (P.W.10) is great grandson of the deceased. We have already said that the disclosure statement was not witnessed by any person but we also find that the recovery memo leading to alleged recovery of silver ornaments is also witnessed not by any independent witness but by a close relations. For totality of circumstances, non-attestation of disclosure statements by any witness, delay in holding identification of ornaments, and non-attestation of recovery memos by the independent witness, we ignore these circumstances. Recovery of blood stained clothes from the accused: 35. We need not dwell upon the recovery of clothes effected from the accused. Shri Ram (P.W.4) in the court stated that police had detained Raju, Lala Ram and Balli. They were sitting in the police station and lot of mob had gathered there and from their house they got recovered their clothes. According to this witness, Raju got recovered pant (Article 16) and shirt (Article 17). Lala Ram got recovered jeans pant (Article 18) and shirt (Article 19). Balli got recovered pant (Article 20) and shirt (Article 21). A perusal of the memo Exhibit-P/72, the report of State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan reveals that no blood was detected on all the three pants and shirts. As per the report, detection of the blood was negative on the clothes recovered at the instance of the accused. That being so, mere recovery of the clothes of the accused cannot be taken into consideration as an incriminating circumstance against the accused. 36. As per the report, detection of the blood was negative on the clothes recovered at the instance of the accused. That being so, mere recovery of the clothes of the accused cannot be taken into consideration as an incriminating circumstance against the accused. 36. By giving detailed reasons, we have excluded the recovery of ornaments from the accused and since specimen foot molds of accused and specimen fingerprints were not taken into possession in presence of Magistrate, for the suspicious circumstances noticed by us, we have discarded these pieces of evidence also. 37. Taking into totality of circumstances, we are convinced that the prosecution has failed to prove chain of circumstances to arrive at the conclusion that only accused have committed the offence. Hence, we shall extend benefit of doubt to the accused. 38. As a result of above discussion, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 592/2014 preferred by Raju and D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 444/2015 instituted by Lala Ram are accepted and they are acquitted of all the charges and their conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court is set aside. 39. In view of the acceptance of the appeal, in above terms, we order that the appellants Raju and Lala Ram be released forthwith, if in custody and not required in any other case. 40. Keeping, however, in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellants Raju and Lala Ram are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each and a surety bond in the like amount, before the trial court. The bonds so furnished shall be effective for a period of six months. The bonds shall contain an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Apex Court.