JUDGMENT : Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the original accused to challenge the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una, dated 28.02.2012, in Sessions Case No. 72 of 2012. Briefly stated, the prosecution version was that accused No. 1-Aahir Deviben was residing with her husband Babu Devsinh Bheda. She had illicit relations with accused No. 2-Babu Devsinh Vadher. The two accused therefore planned the murder of Babu Devsinh Bheda, pursuant to which, in the night of 13.06.2009, accused No. 1 Deviben gave sleeping pills supplied to her by accused No. 2-Babu Devsinh Vadher to her husband Babu Devsinh Bheda and then called accused No. 2 to her house. Babu Devsinh Bheda was carried in such condition to a nearby well, where first he was subjected to electric shock and then thrown in the well. Both the accused were therefore charged with offences punishable under sections 302, 201, 120B read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court convicted both of them for such offences and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Fines were also imposed. The accused have therefore filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. 2. We may record the gist of the evidence. Initially, when the dead-body was found from the well, information was lodged with the police about accidental death by Kumbhabhai Devshibhai Bheda- brother of the deceased. A copy of this communication was produced at Exh. 41. In such communication, it was stated that his brother had gone to the well for starting the electric motor, but had not returned for long. A search was therefore made. From the well, his dead-body was pulled out. He thought that his brother had slipped in the well and therefore died. However, a day later, the FIR was lodged by the mother of the deceased-Lakhmanben Devsinhbhai, PW-7, Exh. 26. She deposed that she lived with her husband and with her son Babu Devsinh Bheda i.e. the deceased. Babubhai lived with his wife and children. The family agricultural land was partitioned. The old couple had retained a small portion. The rest was distributed between the three sons. Babubhai Bheda was cultivating his own share as well as that of the parents. On the date of the incident, early morning at about 5'O clock, she woke up and called Babubhai who stayed in the next room. The family agricultural land was partitioned. The old couple had retained a small portion. The rest was distributed between the three sons. Babubhai Bheda was cultivating his own share as well as that of the parents. On the date of the incident, early morning at about 5'O clock, she woke up and called Babubhai who stayed in the next room. Since the door of her room was locked from outside, Babubhai's wife replied that he had gone to irrigate the field. She looked towards the field and saw that water had not come. She therefore called her other son Bhima by shouting, upon which, Bhima came and opened the latches from her room and Babu's room. Bhima then went searching for Babu to the field of Kanabhai since the water in her field was fetched from the well of Kanabhai. Babu's footwear were lying next to the well. The family members then pulled out the dead-body of Babu from the well. She stated that Babu Bheda's wife Deviben had love affair with Babu Vadher of their village who would visit the lady about which, everyone in the village knew. In the cross-examination, she agreed that in her police statement, she had not stated that she had seen Babu Vadher coming to their field or that the entire village knew about their relations. 3. Bhimabhai Devsinhbhai, PW-6, Exh. 25, Babu's brother deposed that at about 6'O clock in the morning of 13.06.2009, when he was at home, his mother Lakhmanben staying nearby had shouted for him and called him. She told him that Babu had gone to switch on the electric motor, but had not returned yet. He therefore, looked around for Babu and found his 'chappals' next to the well. Though from the ground, he could not see anything in the well, upon dropping an instrument tied to a rope, Babu's clothes got caught in it and his dead-body was pulled out. He had injuries on his body. This witness also referred to the illicit relations of the wife of the deceased with the accused No. 2 as a cause of his death. He had produced before the police, a mobile phone from the cupboard of Deviben. In the cross-examination, he agreed that in his police statement, he had not referred to the dead-body carrying electric shock marks. This witness also referred to the illicit relations of the wife of the deceased with the accused No. 2 as a cause of his death. He had produced before the police, a mobile phone from the cupboard of Deviben. In the cross-examination, he agreed that in his police statement, he had not referred to the dead-body carrying electric shock marks. He had also not referred to the details of the illicit relations between the accused No. 1 and accused No. 2. 4. The prosecution examined several witnesses before whom, allegedly, accused No. 1-Deviben had made an extra judicial confession including one Arjanbhai, PW-8, Exh. 27, Deviben's uncle. However, all except one i.e. Dinesh Mensibhai, PW-15, Exh. 39, turned hostile. We would therefore not refer to the testimonies of these witnesses since nothing worthwhile has come out of their depositions. 5. Dinesh Mensibhai, PW-15, was step-brother of Deviben. He deposed that about 15 days after the incident, Deviben had come to his village. He had gone to the house of Govindbhai, where she was present. Many other people including the Sarpanch of the village were also present. At that time, the Sarpanch asked her about the truth. Deviben revealed that she had given sedatives to Babu Devsinh Bheda. She had given similar tablets to her father-in-law and mother-in-law also and then called accused Babu Devsinh Vadher by giving a phone-call. In sedated condition, they had carried Babu Devsinh Bheda to the field of Jivabhai. There, they had given electric shock to Babu Devsinh Bheda. At that time, a wild boar came into the field. Accused No. 2-Babu Devsinh Vadher told her to drive away the boar. After completing that task, she came back and asked the accused No. 2 about the status and he told her that our task was over. After that, both of them lifted him and threw him in the well. In the cross-examination, he agreed that Deviben was the daughter born out of his father's first marriage and that Deviben's marriage to the deceased was performed from the house of her grandparents. Deviben lived with her grandparents from beginning. He had not attended the last rites of the deceased Babu Devsinh Bheda. He however, denied that Deviben was asking for her share in the agricultural land, due to which, he had strained relations with her. 6. Dr. Amlendukumar Pandey, PW-17, Exh. Deviben lived with her grandparents from beginning. He had not attended the last rites of the deceased Babu Devsinh Bheda. He however, denied that Deviben was asking for her share in the agricultural land, due to which, he had strained relations with her. 6. Dr. Amlendukumar Pandey, PW-17, Exh. 44 was the medical officer, who had carried out the postmortem. 08.03.2017 In the P.M. Note Exh. 45, he recorded following injuries: I. Lacerated wound size about 1 1/2 inch long on the both upper and lower lip. II. Abrasion size 2 inch x 1 cm on the chest antero lateral post lower area. III. Abrasion 1 inch x 1 cm on the Rt hand upper area. IV. Abrasion (1 1/2 x 1/2) cm. on the rt index finger dasal aspect According to him, injuries No. 1 and 2 were ante-mortem, whereas, injuries No. 3 and 4 were postmortem. In the P.M. Note, he had kept the final opinion on the cause of death pending awaiting FSL report. Upon perusal of the FSL analysis indicating that there was no presence of poison in the viscera, he opined that, therefore, the person would have died due to suffocation by forcibly covering the face and the nose leading to stopping of breathing. He clarified that the FSL report was not placed before him earlier. He agreed to a suggestion that the injuries No. 3 and 4 could be caused either while pulling out the dead-body from the well or if the body had scrapped against a girder or the wall of the well while throwing it inside the well. In the cross-examination, he agreed that both the injuries No. 1 and 2 were simple injuries and further, there were no injuries other than these injuries on the body. He had not noticed any electric burn injuries. He agreed that if a person dies due to drowning, there could be two kinds of drowning death; wet drowning and dry drowning. In dry drowning, there would be water in the food pipe but not in the lungs. Symptoms of dry drowning could occur if a heavily intoxicated person falls on his chest and stomach on the surface of the water. He agreed that the possibility of dry drowning could not be eliminated in the present case. 7. Ghanshyamsinh Gohil, PW-19, Exh. 60, was the Investigating Officer. Symptoms of dry drowning could occur if a heavily intoxicated person falls on his chest and stomach on the surface of the water. He agreed that the possibility of dry drowning could not be eliminated in the present case. 7. Ghanshyamsinh Gohil, PW-19, Exh. 60, was the Investigating Officer. He referred to the detailed steps undertaken during the investigation, which included various discoveries made during such investigation. 8. Under Panchnama, Exh. 12, the prosecution recovered at the instance of accused No. 1 the clothes allegedly worn by her at the time of incident as also the shirt of the deceased from a wooden cupboard kept inside her house. The rest of the panchnama is in the nature of what is popularly referred to as demonstrated panchnama. In view of settled legal position, it has no evidentiary value and we have not therefore referred to the same. 9. Likewise, under panchnama Exh. 16, in addition to recording the demonstration statements of accused No. 2, prosecution discovered a ladies pouch hidden beneath the ground. This pouch contained the gold ornaments which according to the prosecution were of Deviben accused No. 1 and her mother-in-law and a strip of 10 sleeping tablets, of which, seven were used and three were still intact in the strip. 10. Under Panchnama Exh. 58, the investigating agency recovered a mobile phone from the house of the deceased, which was handed over by witness Bhima Devsinh. 11. The call details of mobile phone No. 9824743647 from 10.06.2009 to 08.07.2009 were produced at Exh. 96. Endeavor of the prosecution was to establish through this document that multiple calls were made between accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 before the date of incident. On the date of incident also, several calls were exchanged. 12. Of the various articles sent for forensic analysis, blood was found only from the blouse of the accused No. 1. Under communication dated 21.07.2009 (Exh. 74), the investigating agency had raised certain specific queries to be answered by the forensic scientists. The questions relevant for our purpose were: I. During investigation, a wrapper containing three sleeping pills was found. Seven used pills were given to the deceased. The question therefore was whether in the viscera any sedatives could be noticed and if so, the substance matched with the tablets contained in the wrapper. II. The questions relevant for our purpose were: I. During investigation, a wrapper containing three sleeping pills was found. Seven used pills were given to the deceased. The question therefore was whether in the viscera any sedatives could be noticed and if so, the substance matched with the tablets contained in the wrapper. II. The cable wire used for giving electric shock to deceased Babu Devsinh Bheda has been recovered. The question is whether electric current has passed through this wire or not, what is the capacity of the electric wire to transmit the electric current and whether such electric current could cause death of a human being. III. On the shirt of the deceased, four inches long burnt mark is found. Whether this was caused by the electric current? 13. The forensic science laboratory submitted its reports including one produced at Exh. 85. However, in such report, all that was stated was the parcel mark-C (i.e. the three tablets in the strip with the label "valium-5 diasapam") showed the presence of diasapam which is the basic element. None of the specific questions of the investigating agency noted above were answered. 14. This, in the nutshell, is the evidence on record. On the basis of such evidence, learned advocate Shri Dagli for the appellants contended that the case rests solely on the circumstantial evidence. Proved circumstances do not form a complete chain, pointing to the guilt of the accused. The so called discoveries were unreliable and in any case did not provide sufficient evidence. The call details produced at Exh. 96 would not establish that there was any communication between the accused No. 1 and accused No. 2. Firstly, there was no evidence that they were using the respective phone numbers attributed to them and secondly, the call details Exh. 96 were not admissible since there was no certificate as provided in section 65B of the Evidence Act on record. Counsel further submitted that the so called confessional statement of accused No. 1 is totally unbelievable. Only the stepbrother of the accused No. 1 referred to such so called confession. The contents of such confession were not consistent with the evidence on record. In any case, insofar as accused No. 2 is concerned, even such a so called confession was not made. 15. Only the stepbrother of the accused No. 1 referred to such so called confession. The contents of such confession were not consistent with the evidence on record. In any case, insofar as accused No. 2 is concerned, even such a so called confession was not made. 15. On the other hand, learned APP Shri Himanshu Patel opposed the appeal contending that the Trial Court has examined the evidence in proper perspective. Motive and the opportunity for commission of the offence were both proved beyond doubt. In addition to other circumstances, the confession of accused No. 1 would support the prosecution case. 16. We may assess the evidence on record. At the outset, we may recall that the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. It is a well settled principle of law that in such a case, conviction can be recorded only if the proved circumstances form a complete chain pointing unerringly to the involvement of the accused in commission of the crime to the total exclusion of any theory to the contrary. The prosecution would rely on the following circumstances: I. The alleged extramarital affair between the accused No. 1 and accused No. 2. II. The unnatural death of Babu Devsinh Bheda. The prosecution would point out that he did not die out of drowning but was first killed before being thrown in the well. His slippers were merely planted there to make a show that the person had accidentally fallen in the well. III. The discovery of the clothes of the accused No. 1 worn at the time of the incident and the shirt of the deceased. The prosecution would point out that blouse of the accused No. 1 showed presence of blood of the group of the deceased and the shirt of the deceased had a burnt cut mark. IV. The discovery of the pouch at the instance of accused No. 2 containing gold ornaments of accused No. 1 and her mother-in-law and a strip of 10 Valium 5 tablets, out of which seven were used, three remained intact. V. The discovery of the electric cable at the instance of accused No. 2 allegedly used for giving shock to the deceased before throwing his body in the well. VI. The so called confession made by the accused No. 1 at the village of her parents in presence of several persons. 17. V. The discovery of the electric cable at the instance of accused No. 2 allegedly used for giving shock to the deceased before throwing his body in the well. VI. The so called confession made by the accused No. 1 at the village of her parents in presence of several persons. 17. We may first ascertain which of these factors can be stated to have been proved. It is only then that we can judge for ourselves whether such proved circumstances form a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the two accused. Insofar as the extramarital relations between accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 is concerned, we have no reliable proof on record. PW-7, Laxmanben, mother of the deceased, though stated in the examination-in-chief that her daughter-in-law Deviben had an affair with the accused No. 2 who would visit her in the field which she herself had seen, had not so stated in her police statement. This was thus, a major improvement. Likewise, Bhimabhai Devsinhbhai, PW-6, Exh. 25, the brother of the deceased also gave a similar version in the examination-in-chief, but had not so stated in his police statement. These were close relatives of the deceased and lived close to each-other. If these witnesses had any inclination about the extramarital relations between the accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 and going by the version of Laxmanben-the mother, that the entire village knew about it, there was no reason why the same should not have formed part of their police statements. If according to the prosecution, extramarital affair between accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 was the prime cause for which, Babu Devsinh Bheda had been killed, we do not understand why such information was not collected during the investigation itself. It may be that immediately after the incident, these facts may not seem very relevant to the witnesses, however, Bhimabhai Devsinhbhai had stated that the police had recorded his statements on multiple occasions. There is no earthly reason then why at no stage, such facts did not emerge earlier. 18. Other than these depositions of these two witnesses, to link the accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 by extramarital relations, all that we have is the call details of mobile No. 9824743647 produced at Exh. 96. There is no earthly reason then why at no stage, such facts did not emerge earlier. 18. Other than these depositions of these two witnesses, to link the accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 by extramarital relations, all that we have is the call details of mobile No. 9824743647 produced at Exh. 96. If the prosecution had established that this mobile number was used by the accused No. 1 and that multiple calls were made from this mobile number to the mobile number of accused No. 2, such factor needed close consideration. However, there are various reasons why these call details would not aid the prosecution. Firstly, there is no evidence to suggest that mobile No. 9824743647 was being used by accused No. 1. The mobile phone was handed over to the police by witness Bhimabhai Devsinhbhai and it was not discovered at the instance of the accused No. 1. Secondly, there is also no reliable evidence on use of a particular mobile number by accused No. 2. Equally importantly, the call details at Exh. 96 were produced by the Investigating Officer without supporting evidence of the officer of the mobile service provider company or without the certificate of authenticity of such document as provided under section 65B of the Evidence Act. Learned counsel for the defense would correctly rely on the two decisions of the Supreme Court in case of Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and others reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473 and in case of Harpal Singh alias Chhota v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 2016 SC 5389 . In case of Anvar P.V. (supra), it was observed that while secondary evidence of electronic record is produced, the mandatory requirement is that it must be recognized by a certificate specified in section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act. This was reiterated in the later decision in case of Harpal Singh (supra) making following observations: "11. In case of Anvar P.V. (supra), it was observed that while secondary evidence of electronic record is produced, the mandatory requirement is that it must be recognized by a certificate specified in section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act. This was reiterated in the later decision in case of Harpal Singh (supra) making following observations: "11. Qua the admissibility of the call details, it is a matter of record that though PWs 24, 25, 26 and 27 have endeavoured to prove on the basis of the printed copy of the computer generated call details kept in usual ordinary course of business and stored in a hard disc of the company server, to co-relate the calls made from and to the cell phones involved including those, amongst others recovered from the accused persons, the prosecution has failed to adduce a certificate relatable thereto as required under Section 65B(4) of the Act. Though the High Court, in its impugned judgment, while dwelling on this aspect, has dismissed the plea of inadmissibility of such call details by observing that all the stipulations contained under Section 65 of the Act had been complied with, in the teeth of the decision of this Court in Anvar P.V. (supra) ordaining an inflexible adherence to the enjoinments of Sections 65B(2) and (4) of the Act, we are unable to sustain this finding. As apparently the prosecution has relied upon the secondary evidence in the form of printed copy of the call details, even assuming that the mandate of Section 65B(2) had been complied with, in absence of a certificate under Section 65B(4), the same has to be held inadmissible in evidence. This Court in Anvar P.V. (supra) has held in no uncertain terms that the evidence relating to electronic record being a special provision, the general law on secondary evidence under Section 63 read with Section 65 of the Act would have to yield thereto. It has been propounded that any electric record in the form of secondary evidence cannot be admitted in evidence unless the requirements of Section 65B are satisfied. This conclusion of ours is inevitable in view of the exposition of law pertaining to Sections 65A and 65B of the Act as above. It has been propounded that any electric record in the form of secondary evidence cannot be admitted in evidence unless the requirements of Section 65B are satisfied. This conclusion of ours is inevitable in view of the exposition of law pertaining to Sections 65A and 65B of the Act as above. 12 Be that as it may, on an overall assessment of the entire gamut of evidence, we are of the comprehension that the charges against the accused persons including the appellants stand proved beyond reasonable doubt even sans the call details. To reiterate, the gravamen of the imputations levelled against them is that of conspiracy and abduction of the victim pursuant thereto for ransom by detaining him under the threat to cause death or hurt and thereby to compel his father to meet their demand." 19. We have no doubt that Babu Devsinh Bheda was first done to death and then his body was thrown in the well. The postmortem note revealed only four superficial injuries on the body. According to the doctor, two of these injuries were ante-mortem. The other two could be caused either while throwing the body into the well or while pulling the body out of the well. The ante-mortem injuries were superficial and simple in nature. According to the doctor, the person had died due to suffocation. The attempt on part of the defense therefore to suggest that Babu Devsinh Bheda might have accidentally slipped into the well is simply not acceptable. 20. We are prepared to accept the discovery of the clothes of the accused No. 1 and the shirt of the deceased. However, the prosecution has not even made out a case that when the body was fished out, it did not have shirt on. In fact, the witness Bhimabhai Devsinhbhai had stated that upon lowering an instrument inside the well, the clothes of the deceased got entangled with which the body could be pulled out. Further, the so called cut-mark on the shirt of the deceased was never established to have been caused by electric shock. A specific query raised by the Investigating Officer to the forensic scientists remained unanswered. We would only therefore accept the discovery of the clothes of the accused No. 1 and the fact that on the blouse, blood stains were found. 21. The discovery of cable wires would be of no serious consequence. A specific query raised by the Investigating Officer to the forensic scientists remained unanswered. We would only therefore accept the discovery of the clothes of the accused No. 1 and the fact that on the blouse, blood stains were found. 21. The discovery of cable wires would be of no serious consequence. The doctor performing the postmortem had said that there were no electric shock marks on the body. According to him, the death was due to suffocation and not due to electric shock. 22. The so called confession of accused No. 1 was supported only by one witness viz. Dinesh Mensibhai, PW-15. He was the stepbrother of Deviben. He did refer to the confession having been made by Deviben in his presence. However, the evidence of this witness would require a close scrutiny. Firstly, the extra-judicial confession would, as a rule, be assessed cautiously by the Court. Secondly, this witness had somewhat strained relations with his half sister. Deviben was the daughter of the first wife of the father of this witness. Since childhood, Deviben lived with her grandparents. At the time of the marriage also, all ceremonies were performed at the place of the grandparents. This witness had not even visited the last rites ceremonies of Deviben's husband. All factors indicate that the relations between the brother and sister were at best lukewarm. More importantly, the version given by the accused No. 1 in the said confessional statement is totally inconsistent with the evidence on record. In the confessional statement, Deviben was supposed to have stated that the deceased was killed by electric shock. Something that was never proved. In fact, the evidence on record would suggest that theory of death by electric shock was disproved. As noted, the doctor carrying out the postmortem, did not notice any signs of injuries relatable to electric shock being given. The cause of death was not electric shock but suffocation. The query raised by the investigating agency whether the cable wires recovered could transmit electric shock with sufficient voltage to cause death, remained unanswered. We must therefore discard from consideration, the confessional statement of the accused No. 1. 23. To summarize, the motive for commission of the offence was not established. The cause of death projected by the prosecution was at variance with the medical evidence. The confessional statement does not inspire confidence. We must therefore discard from consideration, the confessional statement of the accused No. 1. 23. To summarize, the motive for commission of the offence was not established. The cause of death projected by the prosecution was at variance with the medical evidence. The confessional statement does not inspire confidence. The recovery of the strip of tablets of Valium-5 also is of no consequence since the investigating agency brought no evidence on record to suggest that such medicines were administered to the deceased before his death. 24. In view of such facts, mere discovery of the clothes of the accused No. 1, one of the garments containing blood can hardly be a factor to convict either of the two accused. Mere discovery of the ornaments and the Valium-5 tablet strip in pouch also would be of no importance. Firstly, there was no evidence that the ornaments were those of the accused No. 1. Secondly, even as per the prosecution, these ornaments had no connection with the commission of the offence. It was because of this, that even during the investigation, the ornaments were returned to the family members and never formed part of the muddamal articles. Further, contrary to what was argued before us by the learned APP, this was not a case where the death occurred inside the house occupied by the husband and wife. Had this been the case, the accused No. 1 at least owed a duty to explain the incident. The death occurred at a distance away from the house near the well situated in the field of a neighbour. Even according to the prosecution, from this well, the deceased would fetch water for irrigating his land. It was therefore not uncommon or unnatural for him to have gone to the said place even in early morning or odd hours of the night depending on the availability of the electric supply. Two crucial areas where in our opinion, the investigation badly slipped were to trace the remains of Valium-5 in the viscera of the deceased and establishing the call details between accused No. 1 and accused No. 2. If it was proved that the deceased was drugged shortly before his death, the recovered strip of Valium-5 showing seven tablets having been used up, would certainly be a crucial factor. It could also perhaps be argued then that the wife had the best opportunity to administer such drug. If it was proved that the deceased was drugged shortly before his death, the recovered strip of Valium-5 showing seven tablets having been used up, would certainly be a crucial factor. It could also perhaps be argued then that the wife had the best opportunity to administer such drug. Unfortunately however, the Forensic Science Laboratory did not answer the specific query of the investigating agency in this respect. We are left with mere imagination unsupported by any evidence that sleeping pills were administered to the deceased. A criminal prosecution cannot proceeded on such surmises. Regarding the call details, according to the prosecution, about half a dozen calls were made between the numbers of accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 on the date of the incident itself. Last of them was late at night at about 11'O clock. Such call details undoubtedly would establish close connection between the two accused and being in active touch with each-other on the date of the incident. However, on this score also, there was no reliable evidence. 25. In the result, in our opinion, the Trial Court committed a serious error in convicting the two accused. The judgment of the Trial Court is therefore reversed. Both the accused are therefore acquitted of all charges and would be released forthwith if not required in any other criminal case. Appeal is allowed and disposed of in above terms. Appeal Allowed