JUDGMENT : P.N. DESHMUKH, J. 1. This appeal takes exception to Judgment dt.8.11.2017 passed in Sessions Case No.53 of 2015 by learned Sessions Judge, Wardha. By this Judgment, appellant came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. 2. Case of prosecution can be briefly stated as follows : On 18.1.2015, PW-9 Naresh Thool, Manager of hotel 'Gulshan' lodged report (Exh.60) contending that he was on duty on that day from 9.00 a.m. to 9.00 p.m. when, at 5.45 p.m., accused along with one female visited the hotel and checked-in room no.205 after taking entry in the guest register and on completion of other formalities like obtaining their I.D. Proof etc. At 9.00 p.m. one Akash Moon, night duty Manager joined his duties and was on duty from 9.00 p.m. to 9.00 a.m. on the following day. On 19.1.2015, when PW-9 Naresh Thool resumed his duty at 9.00 a.m., PW-6 Ganesh Choudhari, who was working as a waiter in the hotel, informed him that he had served tea and hot water in the said room till then. At 10.30 a.m., accused came to the counter and inquired with the Manager if any snacks were available. However, since same were not available, he went back and after coming to the counter at 11.00 a.m., informed the Manager that he is going to repair his laptop and instructed that if the female who was with him requires anything, he will inform the Manager on phone; however, the appellant did not return back to the hotel thereafter. 3. It is further case of prosecution that, at 9.00 p.m., PW-6 Ganesh went in room no.205 for obtaining order of dinner and rang the door bell, but, there was no response. He, therefore, informed said fact to Manager Naresh Thool, who, in turn, brought this fact to the notice of owner of hotel namely Gulab Bikchand Ahuja and both of them then visited Police Station, Wardha (City) and apprised them of this situation. He, therefore, informed said fact to Manager Naresh Thool, who, in turn, brought this fact to the notice of owner of hotel namely Gulab Bikchand Ahuja and both of them then visited Police Station, Wardha (City) and apprised them of this situation. PW-13 Murlidhar Burade, P.I. accompanied them to the hotel and with the help of master key, room was opened and it was noted that one woman was lying dead on bed covered with blanket and blood was found oozing from her nostrils. Accordingly, on the basis of report lodged by PW-9 Naresh, offence came to be registered vide Crime No.24 of 2015 for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was further investigated by PW-13 Murlidhar Burade, P.I., who, during the course of investigation, though called Finger Print Expert as had found two chance prints, could not develop the same. At the same time, Spot Panchanama (Exh.48) is drawn along with Seizure Panchanama in respect of two white colored pillows, one having blood stains and another having saliva stains on it, one bed sheet along with other articles including two bank pass books in the name of accused of IDBI bank and Maharashtra Bank respectively, Pan Card and four mobile phones comprising of two mobile phones of Samsung make, one of Reliance Company and one of Nokia make, one page from old diary having some material written on it as well as two bags which were found kept on sofa, which were seized vide Seizure Panchanama (Exh.49). On carrying out said part of investigation, room was locked and instructions were issued to the Hotel Manager to not to open the same without permission of Investigating Officer. During the course of investigation, Inquest Panchanama of dead body was drawn by P.C. Sandeep Khandare. By issuing Duty Pass (Exh.87), dead body was forwarded for post mortem through P.C. Khandare, of which Post Mortem report (Exh.80) is received on 20.1.2015. On Post Mortem, P.C. Khandare produced viscera along with vaginal swab, nail clipping and clothes of deceased, which articles came to be seized under Panchanama (Exh.88). 4. On 21.1.2015, Investigating Officer PW-13 Murlidhar Burade, P.I. issued letter of request to Medical Officer, Sewagram Medical College requesting him to visit the spot and to cooperate with investigation as per Requisition memo (Exh.81). On the same day, PW-12 Dr. Pawan Wankhade along with one Dr. 4. On 21.1.2015, Investigating Officer PW-13 Murlidhar Burade, P.I. issued letter of request to Medical Officer, Sewagram Medical College requesting him to visit the spot and to cooperate with investigation as per Requisition memo (Exh.81). On the same day, PW-12 Dr. Pawan Wankhade along with one Dr. Ashish Salanwar inspected room no.205 and found one long black hair, short black hair and blood stains upon the mattress on the bed, which came to be seized under Panchanama (Exh.23). After drawing Crime Scene Report (Exh.84), Investigating Officer on the same day seized Guest Register, having entry in the name of appellant and deceased Priti Pande made in it along with copy of their Election Identity Cards produced by them, hotel bill along with C.D. containing CCTV Camera footage for the period from 8.1.2015 to 19.1.2015 as produced by PW-9 Naresh, Manager under Seizure Pancanama (Exh.50). On 22.1.2015, Investigating Officer got Sketch of Scene of Offence prepared at Exh.39 and on the same day, he forwarded Viscera under requisition (Exh.89) through P.C. Chandrakant. On 24.1.2015, I.O. forwarded two pillows in sealed condition and made a query vide Exh.83, with Medical Officer, Sewagram if the cause of death mentioned in Post Mortem report as 'mechanical asphyxia as a result of smothering' is possible by these pillows, of which report is at Exh.84. On 9.2.2015, all the seized articles came to be forwarded to C.A. in sealed condition through P.C. Chandrakant under requisition memo (Exh.92). 5. On 8.3.2015, appellant is arrested under Arrest Panchanama (Exh.46) from Nagpur. During the course of interrogation on 10.3.2015, Memorandum Statement of accused came to be recorded of his selling one mobile phone in Hyderabad and for that purpose, PW-13 P.I. Burade obtained permission from Superintendent of Police, Wardha directing PW-11 Anukul Donde, PSI to complete said part of investigation and accordingly, PSI Donde on making Station diary entry (Exh.71), proceeded to Hyderabad along with appellant and other staff on 11.3.2015. They reached at Hyderabad by a private vehicle at 2.50 p.m. and visited Abids Police Station, where, in presence of witnesses, appellant made a statement of his selling mobile phone in Jagdish market at Hyderabad, which came to be recorded (as per Exh.72) and in pursuance to his Confessional Statement, seized one mobile cell phone under Recovery Panchanama (Exh.73). They reached at Hyderabad by a private vehicle at 2.50 p.m. and visited Abids Police Station, where, in presence of witnesses, appellant made a statement of his selling mobile phone in Jagdish market at Hyderabad, which came to be recorded (as per Exh.72) and in pursuance to his Confessional Statement, seized one mobile cell phone under Recovery Panchanama (Exh.73). PW-11 PSI Donde was thereafter, led by accused Rupesh to Shiva Sai lodge, M.G. Road, Hyderabad where Officer Donde, after introducing himself, verified Visitor's register and found entry in the name of appellant, dt.20.1.2015 and then, obtained xerox copy of said extract from the Visitors register duly signed by hotel Manager G. Venkatraman Naidu, which muddemal property is marked as Articles C1 to C3. PSI Donde then recorded statement of Manager and returned back to Wardha and made Station diary entry as per Exh.75 and submitted report of investigation carried out as above at Exh.76. 6. During the course of investigation, statement of PW-9 Naresh was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Wardha. On 11.3.2015, I.O. Burade issued requisition to C.A. Nagpur for providing DNA Kit (Exh.96). On 13.3.2015, while in custody, Memorandum Statement of appellant is recorded as per Exh.45 and in pursuance of it, laptop, clothes, diary and eye liner came to be seized under Seizure Panchanama (Exh.43) from behind Bus Stop at Wardha. On 14.3.2015, specimen handwriting of accused is obtained on six separate sheets in presence of two witnesses, which were numbered as S1 to S6 under Panchanama (Exh.44), which is forwarded to Handwriting Expert along with one chit found on spot under Requisition (Exh.98). On collecting blood sample of accused in DNA kit on 16.3.2015, same was forwarded to C.A., Nagpur under requisition Exh.99. C.A. reports are on record at Exh Nos.101 and 102. On recording statements of witnesses, as investigation was complete, charge sheet is filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (2nd Court), Wardha. 7. In due course of time, case came to be committed for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha. Charge is framed against the appellant vide Exh.7 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Defence of appellant is of total denial and of false implication. 8. Charge is framed against the appellant vide Exh.7 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Defence of appellant is of total denial and of false implication. 8. To establish charge levelled against the appellant, prosecution in all examined 14 witnesses and has commenced its evidence on examining PW-1 P.C. Sheikh Nabi Sheikh Chand, who had accompanied Medical Officer to room no.205 on 21.1.2015; PW-2 P.C. Sachin Khairkar and PW-3 ASI Sanjay Devarkar, Police Photographers; PW-4 Yogesh Mokhade, seizure panch on seizure of vaginal swab; however, he did not support the case of prosecution; PW-5 Ranjeet Patankar on Memorandum Statement of appellant and discovery of laptop etc. at Wardha; however, he did not support the case of prosecution; PW-6 Chandrakant Choudhari, Waiter of hotel Gulshan; PW-7 G. Venkatraman Naidu, Manager of hotel at Hyderabad; PW-8 Mohd. Quadar, Mobile shop owner at Hyderabad; PW-9 Naresh Thool, Manager of hotel 'Gulshan', the Complainant who has proved his report (Exh.60); PW-10 Mamta Pande, elder sister of deceased; PW-11 PSI Anukul Donde, who has carried out part of investigation at Hyderabad; PW-12 Dr.Pawan Wankhade, who had inspected the spot on 21.1.2015 and performed post mortem and issued Post Mortem Report (Exh.80); PW-13 Murlidhar Burade, P.I. Investigating Officer and concluded evidence on examining PW-14 Sunil Ambilware, State Examiner of documents. 9. Accused in support of his defence has not examined any defence witness. It is his specific case, as revealed from his Written Statement (Exh.131), that he is in transport business and was knowing deceased who, apart from appellant, was having many close friends. On 18.1.2015, deceased had come to Nagpur and was in a hotel where she had called appellant, where they spent 4 to 5 hours, during which they had physical contact; while appellant was sleeping, at around 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. in the noon, deceased left the hotel carrying small bag of appellant containing his bank pass books and other documents. It is his further case that two days thereafter he learnt of incident from News Paper and therefore, surrendered to police. As such, it is specific case of appellant that he, at no point of time, visited hotel 'Gulshan' at Wardha with deceased and is falsely implicated. Learned trial Judge, on considering the evidence and documents on record, convicted the accused as aforesaid. As such, it is specific case of appellant that he, at no point of time, visited hotel 'Gulshan' at Wardha with deceased and is falsely implicated. Learned trial Judge, on considering the evidence and documents on record, convicted the accused as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 10. Heard Mr. A.S. Manohar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.S. Doifode, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent/State. 11. Mr. A.S. Manohar, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and the main circumstance relied is of accused having been lastly seen with the deceased. However, there is no evidence establishing involvement of accused as there is huge time gap when the accused was alleged to be seen in the company of deceased Priti and recovery of her dead body, in hotel room no.205 in the night of 19.1.2015 at 10.30 p.m. On it's theory of last seen, prosecution is submitted to have mainly relied on the evidence of two witnesses being PW-6 Ganesh and PW-9 Naresh Thool, waiter and Manager of hotel 'Gulshan' along with documents being Spot Panchanama (Exh.48) in respect of room, Seizure Panchanama (Exh.49) in respect of articles seized from the room after drawing Spot Panchanama as well as Seizure Panchanama (Exh.50) in respect of CCTV footage and documents (Exh. Nos. 51 to 53), bills of hotels and copy of photo I.D. By referring to this evidence, it is submitted that evidence of both these witnesses is not at all reliable and in fact, are got up witnesses as prosecution has not established by bringing on record convincing evidence if, at the time of incident, both these witnesses were on duty in the hotel. In the alternative, it is submitted that if evidence of these two witnesses is relied, same in fact establish involvement of some third person in the present crime as, according to Seizure Panchanama (Exh.49), there is reference to seizure of some mobile phones of unknown persons, of which no investigation is carried out and further contended that, in fact, according to evidence of both these witnesses, when they entered room no.205, at about 10.30 on 19.1.2015, blood was found oozing from the nostrils of the deceased lady, which fact goes to establish that she was recently murdered. 12. 12. With regards to case of prosecution of investigating agency having seized mobile phone of deceased from the mobile shop at Hyderabad after the incident, learned Counsel for the appellant referred to evidence of PW-7 G. Venkatraman Naidu, hotel Manager of Hyderabad for establishing visit of accused at Hyderabad after incident and on evidence of PW-8 Mohd. Ali Mohd. Abdul Quadar, mobile shop owner at Hyderabad where accused, according to case of prosecution, has sold mobile phone of deceased and contended that evidence of above witnesses is not at all convincing since it does not inspire confidence; more particularly, in view of evidence of Investigating Officers PW-11 Anukul Donde, P.S.I. and PW-13 Murlidhar Burade P.I. when their evidence is considered with the evidence of PW-8 Mohd. Ali, mobile shop owner. It is, therefore, submitted that case of prosecution cannot be relied even on this aspect. 13. By referring to evidence of PW-10 Mamta Pande, elder sister of deceased, it is submitted that her evidence further substantiates fact of seizure of more than one mobile from the hotel room where dead body was found and it is further submitted that, in fact, from her evidence, case of prosecution of appellant selling mobile phone of deceased Priti in mobile shop at Hyderabad is itself doubtful when it has come in her evidence that, on her calling on the mobile phone of deceased, same was received by Investigating Officer on 19.1.2015 in hotel room and it is no case of prosecution that accused, after he had left the hotel at 11.00 a.m. on 19.1.2015, had any time returned back to the hotel. It is submitted that this aspect also requires consideration before relying upon case of prosecution. Much has also been argued on the evidence of PW-14 Sunil Ambilware, the Handwriting Expert. It is submitted that, as per muddemal list produced before the trial Court at Serial No.12, there is reference to production of one diary page having some writing made upon it, which, according to case of prosecution is a chit found on the spot which is, however, not forming part of record. By referring to requisition to Handwriting Expert, it is submitted that the diary page referred in the requisition is marked as 'Q-1' by investigating agency itself. However, according to evidence of Handwriting Expert, he has marked one of the articles received by him for comparison as 'Q-1'. By referring to requisition to Handwriting Expert, it is submitted that the diary page referred in the requisition is marked as 'Q-1' by investigating agency itself. However, according to evidence of Handwriting Expert, he has marked one of the articles received by him for comparison as 'Q-1'. Since no chit is forming part of record and proceedings, it is submitted that neither the Handwriting Expert nor PW-6 Ganesh Choudhari, panch could be confronted with the same and in fact, it is kept back by prosecution without bringing on record any satisfactory explanation for the same. By referring to evidence of PW-12 Dr. Pawan Wankhade, who had carried out post mortem, it is submitted that said witness has admitted to have not conducted any test to determine the time of death of deceased and as such, is stated by him by approximation. By referring to Doctor's evidence, it is also pointed out that his evidence establishes swelling on private part of deceased and according to D.N.A. reports, since semen of unknown origin is found detected, possibility of involvement of third person in commission of present crime cannot be ruled out, which is submitted to be not investigated. 14. In absence of Certificate as required under the provisions of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act with regards to evidence of Police Photographers, who had obtained photographs, it is contended that same along with CCTV footage is of no consequence as, admittedly no such Certificate is placed on record as admitted by the I.O. Lastly, by commenting on evidence of PW-5 Ranjit Patankar, panch witness on Memorandum Statement and discovery of laptop, it is contended that recovery of laptop since is from open space, it cannot be given much importance, more particularly in view of evidence of said witness, who is a stock panch of police. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeal is, thus, liable to be allowed as prosecution has failed to establish even presence of appellant on the spot and if at all the appellant is, for the sake of argument, is held to be in hotel till 11 a.m. on 19.1.2015, he cannot be linked with death of deceased, who was found dead in room no.205 on that day at 10.30 p.m., more particularly when blood was found oozing from her nostrils and swelling was found on her private part and according to D.N.A. profile, semen of unknown origin was detected in her vaginal swab. It is, therefore, contended that there is no clinching evidence establishing involvement of appellant alone in the present crime, and without carrying investigation on above material aspects, accused is falsely implicated. It is, thus, prayed that appeal be allowed. 15. While advancing legal submissions on non-production of CCTV footage, learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the case of Tomaso Bruno and another .vs. State of U.P. reported in 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 837 (S.C.). Said Authority is also relied on the count of motive. On the theory of last seen, circumstantial evidence and benefit of doubt, the learned Counsel has referred to the case of Ganpat Singh .vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2017) 16 SCC 353 . The learned Counsel has further referred to the case of Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma .vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2011 Cr.L.J. 663. On evidence of Waiter and Manager of the hotel on their finding blood oozing from nostrils of deceased, learned Counsel has relied on Wintrobe's Clinical Hematology to urge that clotting time of blood is between 8 to 18 minutes from the time of death. 16. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that case of prosecution is based on documents and evidence of PW-6 Ganesh Choudhari–Waiter of the hotel and PW-9–Naresh Thool Manager of the hotel, who had established presence of appellant in hotel with deceased one day prior to incident and since, from their evidence, it is established that accused was present in the room where incident took place, provisions of Section 106 of Evidence Act, 1872 are attracted, which burden has not been satisfactorily discharged by accused. In fact, it is contended that accused had knowledge of deceased lying dead in the room and therefore, had not allowed PW-6 Ganesh to enter room no.205, though he was required to attend said room on 19.1.2015 on two occasions, firstly at 8.30 a.m. for serving tea, and some time thereafter, for serving hot water. It is contended that since, according to his evidence, said witness was not allowed to enter room, conduct of accused is sufficient to establish his involvement in the crime. It is, thus, contended that, from the above evidence, prosecution has discharged the initial burden of prima facie establishing guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt; however, accused has failed to satisfactorily discharge the same. By referring to evidence of PW-12 Dr.Pawan, who had performed autopsy on 20.1.2015, at 1.30 p.m. and has opined that death might have occurred between 36 to 48 hours before commencement of post mortem, it is contended that, according to this evidence, 36 hours would fall in the night intervening 18.1.2015 and 19.1.2015, at about 1.30 a.m. when, from the evidence of PW-6 Ganesh and PW-9 Naresh, presence of accused in room no.205 at that time is established, who, as per their evidence, is, in fact, found present in the hotel till 11.00 a.m. on 19.1.2015. It is, therefore, submitted that, even on this count, appeal fails as accused has failed to discharge his burden. 17. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while submitting upon conduct of accused, has stated that, as per his Statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant on his own surrendered to police on 8.3.2015 i.e. almost 1½ months from the date of incident, in spite of his knowledge of his involvement in the present crime, of which News item was even otherwise published in the Newspaper within two days. It is thus contended that, according to case of appellant, since he admittedly was knowing deceased and had knowledge of her death from the Newspaper, as is the case of appellant, since appellant had surrendered after 1½ months, that by itself speaks of his involvement in the present crime, which is further said to be substantiated from two pass books of appellant and copy of his pan card found in room no.205, which came to be seized during investigation. 18. 18. With regards to case of appellant of non-production of CCTV footage on record, it is submitted that, according to evidence of PW-12 Dr. Pawan, death of deceased occurred in the night intervening 18.1.2015 and 19.1.2015 when, from the evidence of witnesses on record, appellant was in the room, who left the room on 19.1.2015, at 11.00 a.m. It is, thus, contended that, even in the absence of CCTV footage, this piece of evidence can be relied upon. By referring to evidence of PW-6 Ganesh, Waiter, it is further pointed out that, from his evidence it has come on record that, after the appellant and deceased checked in, in room no.205 on 18.1.2015, he found them to have indulged in quarrel, which is stated to be one of the aspects behind his brutal killing of deceased. While summing up his submissions, learned A.P.P. relied upon the following Authorities : (a) On theory of last seen and on subsequent conduct of accused of his absconding, relied on the case of The State of Maharashtra .vs. Maheboob Khan and Ors. reported in 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 1117. (b) On appreciation of evidence in case based on circumstantial evidence and recovery under Section 27 of Evidence Act, relied on the case of Iqlak Fakir Mohammad Shaikh vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in 2016 ALL MR (Cri) 1482 and on the case of State of Karnataka vs. M.N.Ramdas reported in AIR 2002 SC 3109 and Smt. Basanti .vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1987 SC 1572 . (c) On motive having no importance if direct and trustworthy evidence is on record relied on the case of Saddik @ Lalo Gulam Hussein Shaikh and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2016 SC 5101 . (d) To urge that non-examination of most material evidence to prove defence version, in a criminal case is the strongest possible circumstance to discredit defence version and on this proposition, relied on the case of Gajendra Singh .vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1975 SC 1703 . It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 19. It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 19. In the background of submissions advanced as aforesaid, we have scrutinized evidence on record; firstly to satisfy if prosecution has made out its case thereby establishing involvement of accused beyond reasonable doubt on the theory of last seen and for that purpose, have scrutinized evidence of PW-6 Ganesh, Waiter of hotel 'Gulshan', from whose evidence it has come on record that he was on night duty on 18.1.2015 from 7.00 p.m. to 9.30 a.m. on the following day and on 18.1.2015, while on duty, at 8.30 p.m. PW-9 Naresh, Manager of the hotel instructed him to change bed sheet of room no.205, which he got changed at about 8.45 p.m. when he noticed that the guest in the room had indulged in some dispute and were quarrelling after voice of TV set was set high, which fact was informed by him to the Manager who, in turn, visited room and gave understanding to the guest. PW-Ganesh has further deposed that, on the following day at 8.30 a.m., appellant came out of room and instructed to bring two cups of tea; while Ganesh was to visit the room for serving tea, accused came out of the room and took tray inside the room and at the same time, instructed him to get one bucket of hot water which was taken by Ganesh in the room in 5 to 10 minutes; however, on his giving a call, appellant by coming out of the room took bucket and went inside. At 9.00 a.m., his duty hours were complete. Thus, evidence of PW-6 Ganesh is mainly relied on the aspect of accused having quarrelled with deceased on 18.l.2015, at 8.45 p.m. and about his visiting room no.205 on the following day at 8.30 a.m. for serving tea and 5 to 10 minutes thereafter for providing bucket of hot water. However, the appellant, on both of his visits, did not allow Ganesh to enter the room. Before evaluating further evidence of PW-Ganesh, on perusal of his cross-examination on this aspect, we find his evidence on these material aspects to be by way of improvements when he has admitted to have stated while recording his statement by police that, on 18.1.2015, he along with PW-9 Naresh, Manager visited room no.205, when Naresh gave understanding to appellant to not to raise shout. However, he is unable to state why said fact is not mentioned in his statement. So also, he also claims to have mentioned in his statement to police that, when he went along with bucket of hot water, he rang the door bell. However, he is unable to assign any reason why same is not mentioned in his statement. Similarly, PW-Ganesh has admitted to have not stated to police that, by taking bucket containing hot water, he went inside the room. These omissions in the evidence of PW-Ganesh are material since they go to root of the case, particularly when it is the case of prosecution that purposefully appellant did not allow PW-Ganesh to enter room on 19.1.2015 on both the occasions. 20. Before scrutinizing further evidence of PW-Ganesh, it is to be noted that, apart from relying upon him to establish presence of appellant in the hotel room on the fateful night between 18.1.2015 to 19.1.2015, he has also acted as witness on drawing of Spot panchanama (Exh.48) and Seizure panchanama of articles seized from the spot. Further evidence of PW-Ganesh would reveal that, on 19.1.2015, he again resumed his night duties at 7.30 p.m. and visited room no.205 at around 8.45 p.m. to ask for order to serve dinner. However, there was no reply and therefore, he informed this fact to hotel Manager who, in turn, informed to the owner of the hotel and then both of them informed about said fact of no response from room no.205 to police. He has further deposed about police thereafter visiting said room. His evidence which needs consideration is that, after police opened room no.205, he saw deceased lying on the bed having covered with blanket and had noted that blood was oozing from her nostrils, of which Spot panchanama came to be drawn as per Exh.48. He has further deposed that, from the room, four mobiles phones, two pass books along with other articles like one hand bag, pillows, bed sheet, ladies foot wear, two cups, one tray etc. were seized under Seizure Panchanama (Exh.49). 21. He has further deposed that, from the room, four mobiles phones, two pass books along with other articles like one hand bag, pillows, bed sheet, ladies foot wear, two cups, one tray etc. were seized under Seizure Panchanama (Exh.49). 21. PW-6 Ganesh has deposed that, two days thereafter, his services were again obtained by police as he was residing in one of the hotel rooms itself and on that day, in his presence, police seized photo identity cards of appellant and deceased, bill of their meals, guest register of hotel and C.D. containing CCTV footage as supplied by PW-9 Naresh under Seizure Panchanama (Exh.50). The guest register is marked as Article 13, while two photo identities and bill of meals is marked at Exh. Nos. 51 to 53. According to his evidence, apart from articles, as referred in Seizure Panchanamas (Exh.49 and 50) which are drawn two days later, while drawing Spot Panchanama (Exh.48), one chit in the form of some writing on a sheet from diary was found on the spot near the dead body on the table which was seized. At this juncture, we have perused Seizure Panchanama (Exh.49) and find reference to such page where diary having some writing thereon mentioned therein to have been seized along with other articles, which is referred in the said document at Sr.No.14. Reference of said chit having found on the spot is mentioned in Spot Panchanama (Exh.48). However, as already stated earlier, said document is not forming part of record and proceedings nor the same is found to be investigated. Having considering evidence of PW-Ganesh as aforesaid, it is to noted that, in his entire evidence, nothing has come on record to establish if, on 18.1.2015 or 19.1.2015, either he or Naresh were on duty and he had in fact admitted that police had not obtained any document from the hotel to show that he was present and was on duty on these dates. In the circumstances, we find much substance when it is suggested to this witness that, from the duty book as it was found that he was not on duty on 18.1.2019 and 19.1.2015, same is not produced on record, though said suggestion is denied by him and has admitted that there are CCTVs installed in the hotel which records movements in the hotel except from inside the guest rooms and has admitted that police had seen CCTV footage of the intervening night of incident between 18.1.2015 and 19.1.2015. 22. Similarly, evidence of PW-6 Ganesh regarding PW-9 Naresh, Manager instructing him to change bet sheet at 8.30 p.m. on 18.1.2015 also does not appear to be convincing when he has admitted that practice followed in their hotel with regards to change of bed sheet is at the time of allotment of room. He has admitted that, before allotting room to guests, the bed sheets are cleaned and changed. According to case of prosecution, appellant along with deceased checked in room no.205 in the evening on 18.1.2015 and if evidence of PW-Ganesh is to be relied on, then prosecution has not put-forth any explanation requiring Manager to instruct Ganesh to change the bed sheets on 18.1.2015 at 8.30 p.m. We, therefore, find that this evidence is led by prosecution to establish visit of PW-6 Ganesh in the room in the night on 18.1.2015 when he is said to have noticed accused having raising dispute with deceased in the room at night at 8.45 p.m. after raising voice of TV which evidence, however, as already stated aforesaid, is found to be way of improvement. Moreover, evidence of PW-Ganesh also doubts the case of prosecution of his acting as panch for police for drawing of Spot panchanama and Seizure panchanamas as referred above when he admits that, after police visited room, they caused its search and seized all suspicious articles on 19.1.2015 and two days thereafter, police called him in Police Station on 21.1.2015 where his signatures were obtained, which piece of evidence also doubts case of prosecution of seizure of articles from room as deposed by PW-Ganesh. 23. 23. Another witness whose evidence needs consideration with regards to the case of prosecution on the theory of last seen and of accused checking in hotel in the evening of 18.1.2015 and staying with the deceased in room no.205 in the night intervening 18.1.2015 and 19.1.2015 is PW-9 Naresh, Manager of hotel, whose evidence would reveal that, in his capacity as such, he maintains guest register of hotel as well as allots rooms to the guests, prepare bills and attend the customers in absence of room boys. On 18.1.2015, at around 5.30 p.m., appellant along with one female visited hotel 'Gulshan', to whom he allotted room no.205 on obtaining their identity cards and on making advance payment of Rs.1,000/-. As per his version, appellant made entry in the guest register in his own handwriting. PW-9 Naresh has further stated that his duty hours used to be from 9.00 a.m. to 9.00 p.m. and PW-6 Ganesh was working as a waiter and that, after checking in, in the room, appellant, at about 7.30 p.m., ordered dinner, which was served after 15 minutes in room no.205, of which empty dinner plates were removed by him and on the request made by appellant, he directed PW-Ganesh to change the bed sheets at about 8.30 p.m. and has further deposed that, at about 8.45 p.m., informed him of quarrel between appellant and the female in room no.205, upon which he visited the room and gave understanding to them. Evidence of this witness is hearsay evidence, relied by prosecution to corroborate evidence of PW-Ganesh and to further establish its case based on the theory of last seen. Before evaluating further evidence of PW-9 Naresh, Manager, from his above evidence, it is material to note that, admittedly the guest register, though according to evidence of Investigating Officer as well as PW-Ganesh, who has also acted as panch on Spot panchanama as well as Seizure Panchanamas of articles from spot and of articles seized from Manager including guest register, is not sent to PW-14 Sunil, Handwriting Expert, though it is specific case of said Manager that appellant on visiting hotel had made entry in this register in his handwriting. No explanation is put-forth by prosecution for not sending register, which aspect would have established visit and fact of appellant checking in room no.205 with the deceased in the evening on 18.1.2015. No explanation is put-forth by prosecution for not sending register, which aspect would have established visit and fact of appellant checking in room no.205 with the deceased in the evening on 18.1.2015. It is further material to note that, though according to prosecution, one chit alleged to be in the form of some writing on a page from old diary is admittedly not on record, which from evidence of PW-2 Ganesh, is found seized as one of the articles from room no.205 and is referred as article no.14 in Seizure panchanama nor the same is forwarded to Handwriting Expert. Similarly, evidence of Naresh of his visiting room no.205 with Ganesh on his receiving information of some quarrel etc. cannot be considered as evidence of Ganesh on this aspect is by way of omission. Similarly, evidence of PW-Naresh of change of bed sheets on 18.1.2015 at 8.30 p.m. on the request of appellant, also is by way of omission when he admits to have not stated the same either in his report or statement. We, therefore, find that futile attempt is made by prosecution to improve its case by examining PW-Ganesh and PW-Naresh as aforesaid to establish the fact that appellant along with deceased lady were in room no.205 on 18.1.2015. However, for the reasons mentioned as aforesaid, their evidence on above aspect does not appear to be convincing at all. 24. Evidence of Manager Naresh further reveals that, on the next day, he attended duty at 9.00 a.m. and from Ganesh, learnt that he had provided tea and hot water in room no.205 in the morning and PW-Ganesh was on night duty in the night intervening 18.1.2015 and 19.1.2015. He further stated that, at 10.30 a.m. and thereafter at 11.00 a.m., appellant came to counter and inquired address of Arvi Naka and informed that he has to visit said place for repairing Laptop and left the hotel instructing Manager that if the female in the room requires anything, he would inform the Manager on phone. Thus, from the evidence of PW-6 Ganesh and PW-9 Naresh, after appellant entered hotel on 18.1.2015 in the evening, left the hotel specifically at 11.00 a.m. on 19.1.2015, after which appellant is not seen in the hotel. Thus, from the evidence of PW-6 Ganesh and PW-9 Naresh, after appellant entered hotel on 18.1.2015 in the evening, left the hotel specifically at 11.00 a.m. on 19.1.2015, after which appellant is not seen in the hotel. In the background of case of prosecution as aforesaid and evidence of above two witnesses on this material aspect, further evidence of Manager would reveal that, at around 9.00 p.m., when Ganesh went to obtain order for night meals, there was no response from room no. 205 and therefore, he informed this fact to the Manager, who visited the room and rang the bell which was not replied and thus, informed the owner of the hotel, who admittedly is not examined and thereafter, report (Exh.60) was lodged, upon which offence is registered. PW-9 Naresh has further deposed that, after 9.30 p.m., he entered the room along with police and noted that one female was lying on bed in supine condition having blanket on her person and on removal of same, noted that blood was oozing from her nostrils. Thus, it is the case of prosecution that appellant was in the company of deceased since evening on 18.1.2015 when they visited the hotel till 11.00 a.m. on the following day, while the dead body was found in the room no.205 after 9.30 p.m. on 19.1.2015. We, however, find that, for want of verification of entry in the guest register if in the handwriting of appellant, by Handwriting Expert as well as CCTV footage since not proved, presence of appellant in the hotel on 18.1.2015 with the deceased cannot said to be satisfactorily established. Merely because two pass books and copy of pan card of appellant are seized from the spot where dead body is found, by itself is too short to connect presence of appellant at the scene of offence; particularly, when it is the specific case of appellant in his statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure on record at Exh.131 that he was knowing deceased prior to incident who had many other friends. It is his case that, on 18.1.2015 when she came to Nagpur, he was invited to the hotel where she was staying, where he spent couple of hours with her, during which they had indulged in physical contact, wherefrom, without informing appellant, the deceased left in the afternoon along with appellant's small bag, which was containing his bank pass books and other documents. It is his further case that thereafter though he attempted to contact her on phone, he could not get the line through and after two days, learnt of incident from the news item. In that view of the matter, we do not find substantive evidence brought on record by prosecution to establish appellant to have visited hotel 'Gulshan' on 18.1.2015 along with the deceased. Even if it is held that prosecution has established visit of appellant with the deceased on 18.1.2015 to the hotel, from the evidence discussed as aforesaid, appellant left the hotel on 19.1.2015 at 11.00 a.m. while the dead body is recovered in the night at 9.30 p.m. and according to evidence of PW-6 Ganesh, Manager as well as PW-13 Investigating Officer P.I. Burade, on their entering room no.205, they noted that blood was oozing from nostrils of the deceased. In view of above case of prosecution of oozing of blood and its case of appellant going out of hotel on 19.1.2015 at 11.00 a.m. and not returning back thereafter and of finding of dead body in a hotel room in the night of 19.1.2015 after 9.30 p.m., before considering further evidence of PW-9 Naresh, we find it necessary to consider evidence of PW-12 Dr. Pawan Wankhede who, on 20.1.2015, while attached to Medical College, MGIMS Sewagram Medical College, on requisition memo (Exh.79), performed post mortem on the body of deceased. Pawan Wankhede who, on 20.1.2015, while attached to Medical College, MGIMS Sewagram Medical College, on requisition memo (Exh.79), performed post mortem on the body of deceased. He has deposed that, on conducting post mortem, he had opined as to time of death, which is likely to have occurred within 36 to 48 hours before commencement of post mortem which, according to Post mortem report (Exh.80) is commenced on 20.1.2015 between 1.30 p.m. to 3.00 p.m. Therefore, if time of death is calculated within 36 hours, it would come at 1.30 a.m. on 19.1.2015 and if it is calculated before 48 hours, it would fall at 1.30 p.m. on 18.1.2015 which is no case of prosecution as, according to its case, appellant with deceased had checked in hotel on 18.1.2015 at 5.30 p.m. In view of above evidence, thus, if prosecution's case of deceased dying at 1.30 a.m. in the night of 19.1.2015 is to be relied, same requires strict proof, more particularly when, according to evidence of hotel Manager, waiter as well as Investigating Officer, on their entering in the room on 19.1.2015 after 9.30 p.m., they noted blood oozing from nostrils of the deceased. 25. Mr. A.S. Manohar, learned Counsel for the appellant on the above aspect has referred to Wintrobe's Clinical Hematology, ninth Edition, Vol No.2, wherein, Chapter 48 thereof is on the diagnostic approach to bleeding disorders and while considering bleeding time and clotting of blood by adopting three different types of tests to calculate time required by blood for clotting, same is stated to be 8 to 18 minutes. As it has come in the evidence of above named witnesses that, on their entering in the room, blood was oozing from the nostrils of deceased, same was admittedly not clotted. In view of said case of prosecution, thus, it is difficult to hold that deceased died at 1.30 a.m. in the night intervening 18.1.2015 and 19.1.2015 i.e. 36 hours prior to performing post mortem as deposed by doctor. This evidence is also not reliable as PW-12 Dr. Pawan has admitted that, while calculating time of death, he has not carried out any test. This evidence is also not reliable as PW-12 Dr. Pawan has admitted that, while calculating time of death, he has not carried out any test. Though Medical Officer has also stated that death might have occurred within 2 to 6 hours from intake of last meal, he admits to have not examined contents found in the stomach; though, according to him, contents of stomach is a guideline for deciding time of death. The Medical Officer has in fact clearly admitted that he has mentioned time of death approximately. In that view of the matter, we find much substance when it is suggested to doctor that he has mentioned time of death on receiving information from police and relatives of deceased, though he has denied said aspect. Even otherwise, even if the evidence of doctor with regards to approximate time of death as 36 hours before performing post mortem, which falls in the night intervening 18.1.2015 and 19.1.2015 at 1.30 p.m., is considered, appellant cannot be held liable for such death in any manner in absence of any evidence on record to establish if appellant was in company of deceased immediately prior to her death. On the contrary, according to the case of prosecution, appellant had left hotel on 19.1.2015 at 11.00 a.m. and did not return back. In that view of the matter and as blood was found oozing from nostrils of deceased after 9.30 p.m. on 19.1.2015 and as, according to the doctor's evidence, cause of death is 'mechanical asphyxia as a result of smothering', which is accordingly certified to be unnatural death, there is sufficient reason to doubt the case of prosecution and in fact, we find reason to believe involvement of any third person in the present crime, which possibility is more substantiated in view of admitted fact of recovery of four cell phones from the room wherein dead body is found, out of which two, according to Investigating Officer, were Samsung make, one of Reliance Company and one of Nokia make, of which admittedly no investigation is carried out. 26. Similarly, possibility of involvement of third person in commission of present crime is further found when, according to doctor's evidence, during examination, he found upper right part of right labia majora swollen and having detected whitish brown vaginal secretion in the vaginal canal, which is preserved for its DNA analysis. 26. Similarly, possibility of involvement of third person in commission of present crime is further found when, according to doctor's evidence, during examination, he found upper right part of right labia majora swollen and having detected whitish brown vaginal secretion in the vaginal canal, which is preserved for its DNA analysis. On perusal of DNA report on record (Exh.102), the DNA profile obtained from vaginal swab is stated to be of male origin and had matched with the DNA profile of appellant. However, this by itself is not sufficient to link appellant with the crime inasmuch as it is case of appellant that he had physical contact with the deceased in hotel at Nagpur on 18.1.2015. In the circumstances, what is important to consider which further destroys the case of prosecution is result of DNA profile of semen which was collected since was found detected on bed sheet in the room which, on analysis, is certified to be of unknown male origin. In the circumstances, since semen of unknown male origin is detected from the bed sheet where the deceased was found lying, possibility of involvement of third person is further substantiated on this count also. In view of above discussed evidence and for the reason stated above, we do not find prosecution to have established its case based on the theory of last seen beyond reasonable doubt nor from the above discussed evidence of witnesses, prosecution can even said to have established presence of accused in the hotel. On the contrary from the above discussed evidence, there is reason to believe involvement of third person in the present crime. Since no investigation with regards to semen of unknown origin found on the bed sheet is carried out and on noticing the dead body in the night since blood was found oozing from the nostrils of the deceased, prosecution failed to bring on record major link involving appellant in the present crime and in fact, such major missing link is never found investigated by I.O. Similarly, mobile phones and sim cards of third person were also found in the room, it cannot be said that prosecution has established its case against appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In the circumstances, even we find no substance in the case of prosecution with regards to subsequent conduct of appellant, though same is admissible under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the circumstances, even we find no substance in the case of prosecution with regards to subsequent conduct of appellant, though same is admissible under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. More particularly, in view of his case of deceased being careless in nature having number of friends, which case is found corroborated from the evidence of PW-10 Mamta Pande, elder sister of deceased, who has deposed that Priti was residing away from their house since last many years and according to her, she was open minded girl having friendship with many boys. 27. Having considering above discussed evidence, law relied by learned Additional Public Prosecutor on theory of last seen and subsequent conduct of accused to abscond cannot be applied in the appeal in hand having distinguished facts. Similarly, law relied by prosecution in the case of Gajendra Singh (cited supra) of appellant non-examining any witness to establish defence version also cannot be attracted at all, as involvement of appellant in the crime is not established by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 28. Law on the point of cases based on circumstantial evidence is by now well settled. It is held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 ) that prosecution must prove each and every circumstance beyond reasonable doubt. Hon'ble Apex Court has given panchsheel to prove the cases based on circumstantial evidence, as under :- (1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established, (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. However, from the evidence on record, we do not find prosecution to have established any major links, sufficient to establish guilt of appellant. 29. However, from the evidence on record, we do not find prosecution to have established any major links, sufficient to establish guilt of appellant. 29. Hereafter we have considered case of prosecution of appellant's selling mobile phone of deceased, in mobile shop at Hyderabad and recovery thereof at his instance, as put-forth by prosecution and for that purpose, considered evidence of PW-7 G.Venkatraman, Naidu, PW-8 Mohd. Ali along with the evidence of Investigating Officers PW-11 Anukul Donde, PSI and PW-13 Murlidhar Burade, P.I., the Investigating Officer on this aspect had deposed that while appellant was in his custody on 10.3.2015 and was interrogated, he expressed his willingness to give voluntary statement that he had sold mobile phone of deceased at Hyderabad and thus, according to him, further proceeding was conducted at Hyderabad by PW-11 Anukul Dhonde, PSI who, on carrying said part of investigation at Hyderabad, submitted his report (Exh.76). Perusal of evidence of PW-11 Anukul would reveal that, in view of order vide Exh.70 issued to him by PW-13 P.I. Burade, he proceeded to Hyderabad with the appellant on 11.3.2015 after taking station diary entry (Exh.71) and on reaching Hyderabad in a private vehicle, visited Abids Police Station, Hyderabad where he claims that appellant has made statement in presence of two witnesses to discover mobile phone which is recorded as per Exh.72 and thereafter, in pursuance to said Memorandum Statement, he seized one cell phone from a mobile shop under Seizure Panchanama (Exh.73) and returned back to Abids Police Station. It is material to note that, according to PW-13 P.I. Burade, though appellant, on 10.3.2015, while in his custody, on interrogation expressed his willingness to voluntarily make a statement, no statement was recorded by I.O. on that day, for which no explanation is put-forth by prosecution. In fact, according to PW-11 PSI Anukul, he was not even aware if any such statement of appellant was recorded and that he was not having any such statement when he proceeded to Hyderabad for effecting any investigation. In that view of the matter, in absence of recording of memorandum of appellant on 10.3.2015 by P.I. Burade, we do not find any reason for PW-11 PSI Anukul to proceed to Hyderabad as, according to PW-11 Anukul, Memorandum Statement of appellant is recorded by him in Abids Police Station at Hyderabad and accordingly, claims to have effected recovery of mobile phone. Memorandum Statement (Exh.72) is found recorded at Abids Police Station. Moreover, PW-11 Anukul has admitted to have not obtained signature of witness on seizure of mobile (Article 20) at Hyderabad and also admits to have not obtained signature of local police on Memorandum Statement of appellant or on any other document. Even statement of PW-11 Anukul is not recorded by I.O. during course of investigation. However, on being confronted with his statement dt.15.4.2015, he admits to have not stated therein of appellant voluntarily making statement to discover mobile phone and also admits to have mentioned in his statement about his visiting Abids Police Station and has admitted to have not marked any marking on mobile (Article 20) to establish if it is seized from Hyderabad at the instance of appellant. Evidence as aforesaid thus do not proceed the case of prosecution in any manner to establish guilt of appellant. 30. We, in fact, find it material to note that evidence of PW-11 PSI Anukul of his visiting Hyderabad and recording confession of appellant, seizing mobile phone (Article 20) from the shop of PW-8 Mohd Ali, the Mobile shop owner which mobile, according to the case of prosecution, belonged to deceased do not stand for any reason when PW-13 Burade, PI has deposed that, on his visiting room no.205 at around 9.30 p.m. to 9.45 p.m. on 19.1.2015 situated in hotel 'Gulshan' apart from other articles, there was one Reliance company mobile phone, two mobiles phones of Samsung make and one of Nokia Company. As such, four mobile phones were seized from room no.205, out of which one was in the name of Mangesh Hore, resident of Taroda, District Yavatmal. His statement was recorded. According to the case of prosecution, his mobile was used by accused during relevant period. Another mobile phone was of one Yogendra Tiwari, resident of Vallabgarh used by deceased of which C.D.Rs. are claimed to be placed on record. However, none of these call details are established by leading admissible evidence to that effect on record. His statement was recorded. According to the case of prosecution, his mobile was used by accused during relevant period. Another mobile phone was of one Yogendra Tiwari, resident of Vallabgarh used by deceased of which C.D.Rs. are claimed to be placed on record. However, none of these call details are established by leading admissible evidence to that effect on record. Investigating Officer admits that offence of murder is a serious offence and admits to have handled mobile phones found in room no.205 which evidence is found further substantiated from the evidence of PW-10 Mamta when she has deposed that, on 17.1.2015, deceased Priti had visited Nagpur for attending interview and on 18.1.2015, she spoke to her mother informing that she has reached Nagpur and on 19.1.2015 though her mother tried to contact deceased, her phone was out of coverage area. She states that, on 19.1.2015, at 11.30 p.m. when her mother again dialed mobile phone of deceased, it was received by some police personnel who, in the same call, informed her about the incident that Priti was killed in hotel 'Gulshan' at Wardha. In view of evidence as aforesaid, thus, mobile phone of deceased was very much in room no.205 and in fact, the said mobile being of deceased, her mother contacted her on her mobile as aforesaid which was received by police who informed mother of deceased that Priti was killed in the hotel. If this case of prosecution is to be believed, then it's case of appellant visiting Hyderabad after the incident and selling mobile phone of deceased in mobile shop at Hyderabad which is alleged to be seized at the instance of appellant as put-forth by prosecution, is not at all reliable. More particularly, when according to case of prosecution appellant on 19.1.2015 left hotel at 11 a.m. and had never returned back to the hotel. Apart from above reasons, case of prosecution of recovery of mobile at the instance of appellant even otherwise is not at all convincing as on perusal of evidence of PW-8 Mohd. Ali, mobile shop owner, appellant on visiting his shop, wanted to sell mobile as he was in need of money for payment of his lodge bill and thus, sold mobile for Rs.7,500/- which, according to his evidence, was produced by him before police on 11.3.2015, when police had visited his shop with the appellant. Evidence of PW-8 Mohd. Ali, mobile shop owner, appellant on visiting his shop, wanted to sell mobile as he was in need of money for payment of his lodge bill and thus, sold mobile for Rs.7,500/- which, according to his evidence, was produced by him before police on 11.3.2015, when police had visited his shop with the appellant. Evidence of PW-8 Mohd. Ali, however, is by way of improvement when he claims to have stated in his statement to police that appellant had visited his shop and said that he wants to sell his mobile for payment of his lodge bill. In view of his evidence as aforesaid and since this omission is material since go to root of the case, case of prosecution of appellant visiting mobile shop at Hyderabad for selling mobile of deceased needs to be kept out of consideration and prosecution case is not convincing even on this count also. In the background of case of prosecution of appellant to have visited Hyderabad for effecting sell of mobile phone of deceased, prosecution has further relied upon evidence of PW-7 G. Venkatraram Naidu, Manager of Shiv Sai Lodge, Hyderabad who has deposed that appellant had stayed in his lodge from 20.1.2015 for four days, of which entry was taken in the guest register. Thereafter, on 11.3.2015, appellant was brought by Wardha Police to the lodge when he had provided copy of guest register to police. Admittedly, no original guest register is brought on record. As, according to evidence of PW-7 G. Venkatraman, he had not brought the same, due to want of time as he could not search the same. In that view of the matter, fact remains that copy of extract from guest register could not be proved by prosecution and as such, there is no corroborative evidence to the evidence of Manager to establish that appellant had visited his lodge for four days from 20.1.2015. Even otherwise, this witness has admitted to have not obtained signature of guests who had attended his lodge on 20.1.2015. Evidence of PW-G. Venkatraman thus by itself is too short to establish visit of appellant to Hyderabad on 20.1.2015. 31. Even otherwise, this witness has admitted to have not obtained signature of guests who had attended his lodge on 20.1.2015. Evidence of PW-G. Venkatraman thus by itself is too short to establish visit of appellant to Hyderabad on 20.1.2015. 31. Coming back to the evidence of PW-6 Ganesh, it is material to note that apart from what he has deposed to establish presence of appellant in his hotel from 18.1.2015 to 19.1.2015, which evidence is already discussed aforesaid, PW-Ganesh has also acted as panch as in his presence Spot Panchanama (Exh.48) of room no.205 is drawn and vide Exh.49 articles found on the spot are seized. Apart from that, two days thereafter, on 21.1.2015 when he was present in the hotel, in his presence Investigating Officer demanded CCTV footage in CD and Guest register of hotel, which were accordingly provided by PW-9 Naresh, Manager which articles were seized vide Seizure Panchanamama (Exh.50). It is already stated earlier that, in spite of Investigating Officer effecting seizure of guest register of hotel and though it is case of prosecution that appellant on checking-in hotel, in his handwriting made entry in the guest register, no investigation is carried out on this aspect since no such register is forwarded to Handwriting Expert. Though one chit, which is admittedly not on record and other articles were forwarded for its analysis, with regards to evidence of seizure of CD containing CCTV footage, further evidence of Ganesh would reveal that there are CCTVs installed in the hotel which record movements inside the hotel and police had also drawn panchanama of existence of CCTV cameras and had also viewed CCTV footage of movements in hotel during the night intervening 18.1.2015 and 19.1.2015. 32. Evidence of PW-9 Naresh substantiates evidence of PW-6 Ganesh on the point of seizure of C.D. containing CCTV footage on 21.1.2015 by police under Panchanama (Exh.50) which bears his signature. PW-9 Naresh has also stated that police had viewed CCTV footage on 19.1.2015 itself and had directed him to prepare its CD which he got prepared with the assistance of owner of Manish Cassettes and CD, after he collected data from CCTV in his pen drive and handed over it to police. PW-9 Naresh has also stated that police had viewed CCTV footage on 19.1.2015 itself and had directed him to prepare its CD which he got prepared with the assistance of owner of Manish Cassettes and CD, after he collected data from CCTV in his pen drive and handed over it to police. Evidence of these two witnesses, therefore, amply establish act of seizure of CD containing CCTV footage of hotel capturing movements in the hotel of dt.18.1.2015 and 19.1.2015 which includes fateful night intervening these two dates. PW-Naresh has also admitted that, from the CCTV cameras since installed in the hotel, it can be seen whether any person had entered the room or had come out from the room. In the background of above evidence, evidence of PW-13 P.I. Burade, Investigating Officer on this aspect when considered would reveal that, on 21.1.2015, he seized guest register, identity cards of appellant and deceased and CD containing CCTV camera footage of the period from 8.1.2015 to 19.1.2015. Admittedly, prosecution has not brought on record said CCTV footage. Even Investigating Officer has admitted to have not obtained Certificate as required under the amended provisions to Section 65-B of Evidence Act to make electronic evidence admissible. In fact, according to Investigating Officer, he had not viewed CCTV footage and has denied that since there was nothing against the appellant in establishing his presence in the hotel in intervening night of 18.1.2015 and 19.1.2015, no CCTV footage is brought on record. In any case, fact remains that, in spite of seizure of CD having CCTV footage on material dates, same is not brought on record nor Certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act is placed on record. In view of above evidence, we find much substance in the case of Tomaso Bruno and another (supra) relied by appellant, wherein, in similar set of circumstances, it is held that non-production of CCTV footage and non-collection of call details and sim details of mobile phones of appellant cannot be said to be mere instance of faulty investigation; but, it amounts to withholding of best evidence by prosecution. The citation relied is aptly applicable to the appeal in hand as Investigating Officer, apart from above, had admitted that, on drawing Spot Panchanama, four mobile phones were seized from room no.205 of the hotel and one mobile phone was seized at the instance of appellant at Hyderabad, out of which mobile phone no.9422992188 was in the name of one Mangesh Hore, who is admittedly not examined, though his statement is stated to be recorded and his mobile was alleged to be in use of appellant and according to Investigating Officer, another mobile phone no.9717072522, which was used by deceased, was in the name of one Yogendra Tiwari and the Investigating Officer claims to have placed on record C.D.R. of said mobile numbers and has further stated that sim card in the name of one Omprakash Bijewar and Yogendra Prashidkumar were seized in the present crime. However, PW-13 P.I. Burade has admitted that he did not record statements of Omprakash and Yogendra and has admitted to have not checked telephonic conversation made by deceased from cell phone used by her prior to her death. The Investigating Officer also admits to have not carried out any investigation in respect of sim card in the name of Omprakash found in room no.205. In view of evidence of I.O. as aforesaid and the law relied, we hold that prosecution has kept behind best possible evidence. 33. In the circumstances, we note that to invoke provisions of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, prosecution was required to establish beyond reasonable doubt that appellant was present in the hotel room at the relevant time, which aspect has not been established by prosecution at all. Though CCTV footage would have been best possible evidence to be brought on record to prove if appellant was present with the deceased or he did not allow the room boy from entering the room or appellant had gone out of hotel and if appellant was responsible for commission of crime. As already stated above, CCTV footage being a crucial piece of evidence, was necessary for the prosecution to have produced same on record by way of best evidence which is missing in the present case. As already stated above, CCTV footage being a crucial piece of evidence, was necessary for the prosecution to have produced same on record by way of best evidence which is missing in the present case. Omission to produce CCTV footage, in our view, raises serious doubt about prosecution as prosecution has not placed CCTV footage, which is computer generated electronic record, which is admissible if proved in the manner specified by Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. Since no such evidence is brought on record, prosecution's case on this aspect needs no further consideration. Similarly, admission of Investigating Officer of his not collecting any record nor carrying any investigation with regards to sim card details found on the spot also amounts to withholding of best evidence and in that view of the matter, we find this to be a fit case to draw adverse inference against prosecution under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act that prosecution deliberately withheld the material evidence, as it would be un-favourable had this evidence was produced on record. In the background of above facts and for the reasons as stated aforesaid, we do not find it necessary to evaluate evidence of PW-5 Ranjit Patankar relied by prosecution on its case of seizure of Laptop at the instance of appellant as, even according to its case, said recovery is effected from open space having bushes near bus stop at Wardha. Discovery at the instance of appellant as aforesaid is even otherwise not convincing at all as, according to evidence of PW-Ranjit, something was narrated by appellant to police in his presence which was reduced into writing and according to him, police had informed him that appellant made a statement to discover some article from open space near bus stop at Wardha. In view of above evidence, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that evidence of Ranjit establishes any voluntary statement made in his presence by appellant to police while in custody. In fact, evidence of PW-Ranjit would reveal that he is not aware what was stated by appellant to police. In view of evidence as aforesaid, case of prosecution fails on this count also. In the light of above discussed evidence and for the reasons, appeal is liable to be allowed. In fact, evidence of PW-Ranjit would reveal that he is not aware what was stated by appellant to police. In view of evidence as aforesaid, case of prosecution fails on this count also. In the light of above discussed evidence and for the reasons, appeal is liable to be allowed. The Judgment and Order dt.8.11.2017 passed in Sessions Case No.53 of 2015 by learned Sessions Judge, Wardha convicting appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year is quashed and set aside. The appellant be released forthwith if he is not required in any other crime.