JUDGMENT : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. 1. Through this appeal under Section 374 (2) CrPC, the appellant seeks to assail the judgment dated 21.03.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.3/2011, whereby he was convicted and sentenced as below :- Offence for which convicted Sentence awarded Section 302 IPC Life term imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.2000/- Section 376 IPC Rigorous imprisonment of eight years and a fine of Rs.3000/- Section 201 IPC Rigorous imprisonment of three years and a fine of Rs.2000/- 2. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are as under :- The complainant Birbal (P.W.5) lodged a written report (Ex.P/18) to the Station House Officer, Police Station Padampur at the place of the incident on 26.11.2010 alleging inter alia that his wife Kalawati, aged 40 years, was indulged in the job of making Rotis etc. in marriages. On the previous evening, she informed their daughter Sonu Bai and went to a marriage at 21 B.B. for the purposes of preparing Chapatis. She did not return till 10-11 o’clock of the next morning, upon which, the first informant got worried and tried to locate her whereabouts. He received an information that dead body of a woman had been recovered in the Rohi of Village B.B.-I. He rushed to that location and saw that the dead body was of his wife Smt. Kalawati and had been burnt badly. He suspected that some unknown assailant had subjected his wife to rape and thereafter she had been throttled to death. The dead body was set to fire so that her features could be destroyed beyond the scope of identification. He also alleged that his wife was carrying a mobile bearing No.9694439534 with her. On the basis of this report, a formal FIR No.220/2010 was registered at the Police Station Padampur for the offences under Sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC. The Investigating Officer, prepared a site plan after inspecting the place of incident. Moulds of right and left foot imprints allegedly left behind by the suspect near the dead body were lifted vide recovery memo (Ex.P/6) prepared on 26.11.2010 at 04.00 p.m. The dead body was subjected to postmortem. The Investigating Officer, prepared a site plan after inspecting the place of incident. Moulds of right and left foot imprints allegedly left behind by the suspect near the dead body were lifted vide recovery memo (Ex.P/6) prepared on 26.11.2010 at 04.00 p.m. The dead body was subjected to postmortem. The vaginal swab and smear collected from the body of the deceased and the underwear of the deceased were forwarded to the FSL, from where, a report Ex.P/59 was received, which indicated that all the three articles tested positive for presence of human semen. The witness Sukhdev Singh (P.W.6) allegedly gave a statement to the Investigating Officer that he had seen the accused appellant proceeding with the deceased, i.e. the wife of the first informant, in the evening at 07.00-7.30 p.m. The accused appellant was apprehended on 01.12.2010 and it is claimed that he gave an information to the Investigating Officer, in furtherance whereof, the place of incident was got identified vide memo Ex.P/42 dated 03.12.2010. The Investigating Officer claims to have recorded voluntary informations of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, in furtherance whereof, the recoveries of incriminating articles were purportedly effected from the accused in the following order :- Information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act Recovery made vide memo Article Date Ex.P/43 Ex.P/14 Gold like Om ornament, silver anklet one pair, silver ring with stone, artificial earrings 03.12.2010 Ex.P/44 Ex.P/16 Spice mobile model M-3636 black in colour 04.12.2010 4. The Investigating Officer further claims to have conducted exercise of preparation of specimen foot-moulds of the chappals worn by the accused in presence of one Dr. Rohit Choudhary. The suspect’s foot-moulds which had been lifted from the place of incident and the specimen foot-mould impressions of the footwear worn by the accused were forwarded to the FSL for comparison, from where, a report Ex.P/60 was received concluding that both foot-mould impressions, i.e. those of the suspect and those of the accused were similar in respect of shape, size and design. 5. After conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused appellant for the offences under Sections 302, 376, 397 and 201 IPC in the court of the concerned Magistrate. 5. After conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused appellant for the offences under Sections 302, 376, 397 and 201 IPC in the court of the concerned Magistrate. Since the offences were Sessions triable, the case was committed to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur for trial, who framed charges against the accused appellant for the offences under Sections 302, 376, 201 and 392 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 61 documents in support of its case. 6. The accused, when questioned under Section 313 CrPC and upon being confronted with the evidence appearing against him in the prosecution case, denied the same and claimed to have been falsely implicated. After hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence and upon appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial Judge proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant as above by the impugned judgment dated 21.03.2013. However, the accused was acquitted from the charge under Section 392 IPC holding that he did not remove the ornaments etc. of the deceased with the intention of looting/robbery. Hence, this appeal. 7. Mr. S.K. Verma, learned counsel representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. Sukhdev Singh (P.W.6), the witness who gave evidence of last seen against the accused, has deposed absolutely flimsy facts, which do not support the prosecution case because he categorically stated that he saw Om Prakash Nayak, the appellant herein, going with the wife of Kaluram and that the name of the said woman was Sheela Devi. He urged that the prosecution adopted a very strange exercise inasmuch as, the witness was asked to identify the complainant present in the court and at that point of time, he identified the complainant being one and same as Kaluram. He submitted that even though the witness tried to explain that Birbal/Kaluram was the same person, but in cross-examination, he admitted that he did not know that Birbal was the same person as Kaluram. Mr. Verma, thus, urged that there is a grave contradiction in the statement of the witness regarding the identity of the lady who was allegedly accompanying the accused and hence, the circumstance of last seen cannot be read in evidence against the accused. 8. Mr. Verma, thus, urged that there is a grave contradiction in the statement of the witness regarding the identity of the lady who was allegedly accompanying the accused and hence, the circumstance of last seen cannot be read in evidence against the accused. 8. He further urged that the evidence of recovery of foot-moulds from the place of incident and the comparison thereof with the foot-moulds of the chappals worn by the accused loses steam when the site inspection plan (Ex.P/10) is seen. He urged that in the site inspection plan (Ex.P/10) and the description memo (Ex.P/10A), it is clearly mentioned that the Investigating Officer saw two pairs of foot-moulds of chappals and boot/sleeper, one of which was of the deceased Kalawati and the other was of the unknown assailant. He urged that the chappals worn by the deceased Smt. Kalawati at the time of incident were allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused, but the moulds of the footwear of the accused himself were neither prepared nor sent for comparison to the FSL. He further urged that since there was no evidence whatsoever in the hands of the Investigating Officer to establish the involvement of the accused appellant in the alleged murder, there could not have been any reason to arrest him on 01.12.2010. He further submitted that there is no allegation whatsoever in the written report (Ex.P/18) that any ornaments worn by the deceased were missing from the dead body and thus, as per Mr. Verma, the recovery of the ornaments attributed to the appellant cannot be considered to be incriminating. He further contended that the prosecution could not prove the call details of the mobile phones by proper evidence because no certificate issued by the service provider’s authorized officer as per the Section 65-B of the Evidence Act was brought on record to verify or prove these call -details. He further contended that the FSL report regarding the foot-moulds is inadmissible because the specimen foot-moulds of the accused were not collected in presence of a Magistrate. He urged that Dr. Rohit Choudhary, in whose presence these foot-mould impressions were allegedly prepared vide memorandum Ex.P/11, was not made to prove the memorandum when he was examined as P.W.11. He further contended that the FSL report regarding the foot-moulds is inadmissible because the specimen foot-moulds of the accused were not collected in presence of a Magistrate. He urged that Dr. Rohit Choudhary, in whose presence these foot-mould impressions were allegedly prepared vide memorandum Ex.P/11, was not made to prove the memorandum when he was examined as P.W.11. He further buttressed that if at all, the prosecution was desirous of proving that the semen available on the underwear of the accused matched with the semen found in the vaginal swab and smear of the deceased and then these articles should have been subjected to DNA comparison test, which was not employed. He, thus, urged that the entire prosecution case is based on flimsy set of circumstances, which do not invariably point towards the guilt of the accused and hence, he is entitled to be acquitted of the charges. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. He urged that the prosecution has successfully proved the following circumstances, which invariably point towards the guilt of the accused : 1. Circumstance of last seen. 2. Circumstance of motive (sexual gratification). 3. Recovery of the ornaments worn by the deceased. 4. Matching of the foot-moulds recovered from the place of incident with the foot-moulds of the footwear worn by the accused at the time of his arrest. 5. Recovery of the mobile of the deceased made from the accused. 10. He, thus, urges that the conviction of the accused as recorded by the trial court is based on apropos evaluation of the evidence available on record and the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference whatsoever in this appeal. 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and have minutely re-appreciated the evidence available on record. 12. The material witnesses, whose evidence needs to be discussed are Indra (P.W.2), daughter of the deceased; Sandeep (P.W.3), son of the deceased; Birbal (P.W.5), the first informant and the husband of the deceased; Sukhdev Singh (P.W.6) witness of last seen; Dr. Sudheer Arora (P.W.10), who conducted the postmortem upon the dead body of the deceased and issued the postmortem report (Ex.P/38); Satyapal Bishnoi (P.W.12) and Kishan Lal (P.W.14), the Investigating Officers. 13. Sudheer Arora (P.W.10), who conducted the postmortem upon the dead body of the deceased and issued the postmortem report (Ex.P/38); Satyapal Bishnoi (P.W.12) and Kishan Lal (P.W.14), the Investigating Officers. 13. Indra (P.W.2), being the daughter of the deceased, stated in her examination-in-chief that her mother had gone to some marriage in 21 BB on 25.11.2010. At that time, she was wearing Lahanga, Kurta, Odhana and a black coloured coat. She was wearing artificial earings, a gold pedant, silver ring and silver payajeb. She also used to keep the a mobile phone with herself. However, what is relevant to mention here that the witness did not state the number of mobile in use of her mother and she was also not made to identify any of the recovered articles during her testimony. The witness also stated that when her father and brother went to the place where the dead body of her mother was lying, her father told that Omprakash @ Omla had killed their mother and had made off with her belongings. In her cross-examination, the witness re-affirmed this fact and stated that on the very day of the incident, her father and brother Sandeep told her all these facts by naming the accused to be the offender. This statement indicates that the complainant might be suspecting that the accused was having some kind of illicit affair with Smt. Kalawati and that is why, even before any investigation was conducted, Birbal Ram cast a suspicion against the appellant as the murderer. However, no such allegation is set out in the written report (Ex.P/18). 14. Sandeep (P.W.3), being the son of the deceased, also stated that he had gone to Dargah at the Village 6 NN on 26.11.2010. He was called by his father at about 1 o’clock, who told him that a woman had been killed and the dead body was lying in the Rohi (Charagah) of 20 BB. They went to the place of occurrence and identified the body to be of his mother. What is significant and noticeable from the evidence of this witness is that he claimed that black coloured chappals of Figo company belonging to his mother were recovered from the accused appellant vide seizure memo Ex.P/19. Likewise, the witness stated that a spice mobile Model No.S-3636 was recovered from the accused appellant vide seizure memo Ex.P/16. What is significant and noticeable from the evidence of this witness is that he claimed that black coloured chappals of Figo company belonging to his mother were recovered from the accused appellant vide seizure memo Ex.P/19. Likewise, the witness stated that a spice mobile Model No.S-3636 was recovered from the accused appellant vide seizure memo Ex.P/16. Significantly enough, the witness did not state that the mobile recovered from the accused belonged to his mother. In cross-examination, the witness, admitted that when the seizure memos Ex.P/14, Ex.P/15, Ex.P/16, Ex.P/17 and Ex.P/19 were prepared, only Sarpanch Paramjeet, member Gurmeet and police personnel were present there and “that the accused Omprakash was not present at that point of time”. From this significant admission made by the witness, a doubt is created regarding the sanctity of the recovery procedure recorded in memorandum Ex.P/19, whereby, the Investigating Officer claims to have recovered the slippers/chappals of the deceased from the accused appellant. It may be stated here that these very chappals were used to prepare the specimen foot-moulds. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer mentioned in the seizure memo (Ex.P/19) that Omprakash was wearing these footwear, which were taken off from him and on the very same day, moulds thereof were prepared. However, the witness Sandeep being the motbir of the seizure memo did not state anything regarding preparation of the foot-moulds. 15. Gursevak Singh (P.W.4) is a formal witness regarding preparation of the site inspection plan etc. 16. Birbal Ram (P.W.5), being the first informant, is the most important witness examined by the prosecution. He stated in his examination-in-chief that on 25.11.2010 in the evening at about 5.00-5.30 p.m., his wife went to work in a marriage at Village 21 BB after informing their daughter. At that time, she was wearing some ornaments and was also carrying a mobile phone. He returned home in the next morning and found that his wife had not returned by then. In the afternoon, he received an information regarding a dead body of a woman lying in the Rohi of Village 20 BB. He, alongwith his son Sandeep went to the Rohi and saw policemen were standing there alongwith numerous other people. The dead body was lying in gram crop. He identified the same to be of his wife. She had been raped and then the body had been burnt. He, alongwith his son Sandeep went to the Rohi and saw policemen were standing there alongwith numerous other people. The dead body was lying in gram crop. He identified the same to be of his wife. She had been raped and then the body had been burnt. The ornaments worn by his wife and the mobile carried by her were taken away by the unknown assailant. The witness stated the he gave the written report (Ex.P/18) to the police. He also attested various memos, viz. site inspection memo, Surat Haal Lash, seizure memo of the ashes etc. He also identified the photographs of his wife’s dead body. The witness also stated that the police lifted the foot-moulds of the suspect from the scene of occurrence. The most significant fact noticeable from the evidence of this witness is that he denied the fact mentioned in the Fard Surat Haal Lash that the Borla (ornament worn on the head) and the Mangalsutra of the deceased had been given to her husband. Another fact, which is noticeable from the evidence of this witness is that he was not made to identify either the ornaments of the deceased or her mobile phone, which were allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused. 17. Thus, from the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses, no positive inference can be drawn that the mobile and the ornaments recovered at the instance of the accused were those of the deceased or she was having the same with her at the time of the incident. Furthermore, it does not stand to reason that the accused would leave behind the gold Mangalsutra and Borla worn by the deceased and be selective while taking away only the artificial ornaments from the dead body. The trial court too did not hold the accused guilty of theft/robbery. Thus, we are duly satisfied that the prosecution failed to lead proper evidence so as to satisfy the court that the articles including the mobile phone recovered at the instance of the accused were those of the deceased or the accused removed the same from her dead body. 18. It cannot be denied that the entire prosecution case is based solely on circumstantial evidence. We now propose to elaborate and evaluate each and every circumstance, which prosecution relies upon. 19. The incident took place on 26.11.2010. The accused-appellant was arrested on 01.12.2010. 18. It cannot be denied that the entire prosecution case is based solely on circumstantial evidence. We now propose to elaborate and evaluate each and every circumstance, which prosecution relies upon. 19. The incident took place on 26.11.2010. The accused-appellant was arrested on 01.12.2010. Witness Sukhdev Singh (P.W.6) was examined as the sole witness to prove that he had seen the accused and the Birbal’s wife going together towards the market in the evening at about 07.30 p.m. and that the lady was not seen alive thereafter. In his examination-in-chief, the witness stated that he saw the accused Omprakash and Kaluram’s wife going towards the market. Since the witness did not state that the lady accompanying the accused was the wife of Birbal Ram, the learned Public Prosecutor tried to question him on this aspect, on which, the witness stated that he did not know the other name of Kaluram and added that he was not sure that Birbal Ram was known as Kaluram. He named the lady to be Sheela Devi, wife of Kaluram. On further questions, he re-affirmed that the lady, whom he had seen was the wife of Kaluram. At this stage, the learned Public Prosecutor tried to get Birbal Ram identified through the witness. On a leading question of the Public Prosecutor, the witness stated that he knew Birbal Ram to be Kaluram. In cross-examination, the witness made the following candid admissions :- ^^;g ckr lgh gS fd vkt ls igys eq>s ;g ugha irk Fkk fd dkywjke dk uke chjcy jke Hkh gSA vkSj ;g ckr Hkh lgh gS fd eSaus vius iqfyl c;ku izn'kZ bZ ,Dl Mh 4 gS ftlesa ;g ckr gS fd eSa chjcyjke es?koky dk ?kj 20 ch ch- r`rh; tkrs gSa rc jkLrs esa ugj ij gS bl dkj.k eSa chjcy jke ds ifjokj dks Hkh tkurk gw¡ chjcyjke dh ?kjokyh c;ku 'kkfn;ksa esa jksVh cukrh FkhA vkSj uk gh eSaus ;g fy[kk;k gS fd eSaus vkseizdk'k uk;d ds lkFk chjcyjke dh ?kjokyh dks cktkj dh rjQ lkFk tkrs ns[kk FkkA vkSj uk gh eSaus ;g fy[kk;k Fkk fd chjcyjke dh ?kjokyh dk eqag ml uaxk Fkk ftl dkj.k eSaus mls igpku fy;k FkkA izn'kZ bZ ,Dl Mh 4 dk fgLlk ftlesa chjcy jke ntZ gS eSaus iqfyl dks ugha fy[kk;kA** 20. Upon minutely appreciating the statement of this witness, we are duly satisfied that from his evidence, no affirmative inference can be drawn that the lady, who was allegedly accompanying the accused appellant in the market was Smt. Kalawati, the deceased. 21. Once the evidence of last seen is eschewed from consideration, the second circumstance, which the prosecution heavily banks upon to prove the case against the accused is in form of the matching foot-mould impressions. In this regard, we have carefully gone through the site inspection plan (Ex.P/10), the site description memo (Ex.P/10A) and the evidence of the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer claims to have noticed the foot marks of the victim as well as the suspect at the spot, which fact was mentioned in the description memo. Signs of struggle were also noticed at the spot. The Investigating Officer collected suspect’s foot-mould impressions from point No.C. It is mentioned in the memorandum Ex.P/9 that the foot-mould impressions were either of boot or sleeper. When the dead body of Smt. Kalawati was inspected, her footwear were not available nearby. The accused was arrested on 01.12.2010 vide arrest memo Ex.P/29. The accused allegedly gave informations under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to the Investigating officer which were recorded in memos Ex.P/43 and Ex.P/44. The Investigating Officer also proceeded to seize the footwear allegedly worn by the accused on 05.12.2010 on the premise that the accused had confessed that the footwear (Chappals) were those of Kalawati and he had taken the same off from her body after murdering her and continued to wear them till 05.12.2010, when they were seized. As per the seizure memo (Ex.P/19), the chappals were seized on 05.12.2010 at 12.10 p.m. and were sealed in a cloth bag. The Investigating Officer noted that the words Figo and numeral 5 were carved in the soles of the chappals. The procedure of preparation of the specimen foot-mould were undertaken on 05.12.2010 at 11.30 a.m. Upon a comparative analysis of this fact vis-a-vis the site inspection memorandum and the seizure memo of the suspect’s foot-moulds, it is clear that there is no mention whatsoever in these documents that the suspected foot-marks bore any such corresponding imprint in the sand. The Investigating Officer noted in the site inspection memo (Ex.P/10A) that the deceased Kalawati and the suspect were walking one after the other. The Investigating Officer noted in the site inspection memo (Ex.P/10A) that the deceased Kalawati and the suspect were walking one after the other. One of the foot imprint was of chappals and the other was of boot/sleeper. The assailant is noted to have killed Kalawati at mark ‘X’ and then proceeded to towards mark ‘E’. The foot-moulds were taken from mark ‘C’. As per the Investigating Officer’s notings, these foot-moulds were of boot/sleeper. As has been mentioned above, specimen foot-moulds, which have been taken during investigation were of Kalawati’s chappals, which were allegedly identified by her son Sandeep (P.W.3). Surprisingly enough, the Investigating Officer did not mention anything about the footwear worn by the accused in the arrest memo dated 01.12.2010. As the Investigating officer had collected the specimen foot-moulds from the scene of occurrence on 26.11.2010, it was expected of him to be careful in this regard and the footwear worn by the accused should definitely have been seized right at the time of his arrest, if at all there was any genuine reason to doubt that the specimen foot-moulds taken from the place of occurrence were those of the accused. The rank indifference shown by the Investigating Officer in making any effort in this direction till 05.12.2010 and in specifically mentioning that the footwear, of which the specimen moulds were being taken, were those of Kalawati, is sufficient to create a doubt in the mind of the court that there is something seriously amiss in the proceedings, whereby foot-moulds were collected by the Investigating Officer. 22. It is mentioned in the memorandum Ex.P/41 that the specimen foot-mould impressions were taken in presence of Dr. Rohit Choudhary, however, when he was examined during trial as P.W.11, he did not state that any such exercise of collection of specimen foot-mould impressions was carried out in his presence. 23. Since the recovery of the footwear of the deceased at the instance of the accused has been falsified from the statement of Sandeep (P.W.3), the procedure of preparing the specimen foot-moulds through those sleepers and sending the same for comparison with the foot-moulds lifted from the place of occurrence becomes redundant. Manifestly, the Investigating Officer has effected a planted recovery of the footwear of the deceased from the accused in an endeavour to prove the case by hook or by crook. Manifestly, the Investigating Officer has effected a planted recovery of the footwear of the deceased from the accused in an endeavour to prove the case by hook or by crook. It seems that the Investigating Officer must to have lifted the specimen foot-moulds from the place, where the dead body was recovered and as he could not gather proper evidence to connect the accused appellant with the crime, he carved out an innovative design by portraying that the accused was wearing the footwear of the deceased when he was arrested and that Sandeep (P.W.3), son of the deceased, identified the same to be of his mother. Apparently, the accused had no reason whatsoever to take away the female footwear after killing the deceased. Furthermore, with the clear deposition of Sandeep that when the seizure memo (Ex.P/19) was drawn up, the accused was not present during the proceedings, the recovery of the footwear allegedly made at the instance of the accused is totally falsified. Once, we discard the recovery of the slippers of the deceased shown to have been effected from the accused, the FSL report, whereby the suspected foot-moulds available at the spot were compared with the specimen foot-moulds prepared from the slippers recovered vide the recovery memo (Ex.P/19), becomes redundant and worthless. 24. Consequently, we are not inclined to place reliance on the evidence of the foot-mould impressions, the FSL report Ex.P/60, which were treated to be a strong circumstance against the accused by the trial court. 25. The last circumstance, which the prosecution proposed against the accused in its quest to bring home the charges was the recoveries of a mobile phone and ornaments alleged to be of the deceased. As has been mentioned above, the accused was arrested on 01.12.2010 vide arrest memo Ex.P/29. The arrest memo Ex.P/29 mentions that the accused was having a double sim mobile phone model M4580 of Spice company, in which, one sim was of Vodafone company bearing No.96726-45399 and the other sim was of Idea company bearing No.80588-72139. The Investigating Officer thereafter claims to have recorded the information of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide memo Ex.P/44 on 04.12.2010 and in furtherance thereof, he proceeded to recover a Spice mobile model M3636 from the house of the accused vide seizure memo Ex.P/16. This mobile was having an Airtel sim No.96020-52345 and an Idea sim No.96944-39534. This mobile was having an Airtel sim No.96020-52345 and an Idea sim No.96944-39534. The mobile was identified by the witness Sandeep to be of his mother Kalawati. The mobile No.96944-39534 is mentioned in the FIR (Ex.P/18) as well. 26. In addition to the recovery of the mobile phone, the accused allegedly gave information to the Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide memorandum Ex.P/43 and in furtherance thereof, he got recovered the ornaments alleged to be worn by the deceased vide seizure memo Ex.P/14. The substantive evidence that the recovered ornaments belonged to deceased Smt. Kalawati could have been given by her son Sandeep (P.W.3) or her husband Birbal (P.W.5). However, neither of these two witnesses were made to identify the ornaments during their evidence in the court. Thus, the recovery of the ornaments cannot be treated to be an incriminating piece of evidence and the trial court also acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 392 IPC by the impugned judgment. 27. Superficially, the recovery of the mobile phone would tend to incriminate the accused. This is the only circumstance which remains in existence against the accused as we have already discarded the other circumstances. However, we feel that solely on the basis of the recovery of the mobile phone, the court would not be justified in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC because the possibility of the mobile phone having changed hands and having come into the possession of the accused as stolen property cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, it does not stand to reason that when rape was the motive of the incident, the accused would take the risk of creating evidence against himself by removing the mobile phone of the victim and hiding the same at his house, when he had ample opportunity to destroy the same. Thus, we are not inclined to agree with the finding of the trial court that the recovery of the mobile phone incriminates the accused. 28. Thus, we are not inclined to agree with the finding of the trial court that the recovery of the mobile phone incriminates the accused. 28. Since we have held that the evidence of last seen; the evidence of recoveries and the evidence of matching foot-moulds is not reliable enough so as to complete the chain of circumstances portrayed by the prosecution in its quest to bring home the guilt of the accused, the charges attributed to the accused must fail because there is no other evidence on record so as to connect the accused with the alleged offences. 29. As a result of the above discussion, the appeal deserves acceptance and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 21.03.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.3/2011 is quashed and set aside. Appellant Om Prakash @ Omla is acquitted of the charges under Sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC. The appellant is in custody. He shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 30. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC, the accused appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the appellant shall appear before the Supreme Court.