JUDGMENT : R.DEVDAS J.: 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State under Section 378 (1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27.07.2016 passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi, in S.C.No.104/2012. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.08.2009, Shri Omprakash, PW-1 informed the police that his wife Smt.Roopa was found dead with blood injuries in the bedroom. One Mr.Rajendra Kumar (PW-11) called him on the cell phone and informed him that his wife was unwell and therefore, he should immediately rush back to his house. Earlier that morning at about 10 a.m., Omprakash and his wife, the deceased visited Shiva temple situated in Medar Oni Circle of Hubballi and after performing pooja, he dropped his wife near vegetable market, Sarafgatti, Hubballi. Thereafter, at about 10.30 a.m., he deposited a cheque of Jain Marbles and proceeded to Jain Marbles, Hubballi, where he was working. On receiving a call from Rajendra Kumar, he rushed to his house and saw the dead body of his wife at 1.20 p.m. He noticed that her left cheek and her left eye were swollen and that cash of Rs. 5,30,000/-, 4 gold bangles weighing 4 tholas, 2 gold ear rings weighing 3 grams, 2 gold rings weighing 6 grams and another sum of Rs. 12,000/-were missing from the house. He suspected that someone had attacked his wife with deadly weapons and committed dacoity. The information was registered in Cr.No.183/2009 against unknown persons for offences punishable under Sections 302, 394, 201, 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. The Police Inspector of Town Police Station, Hubballi, summoned finger print experts and dog squad to the scene of offence and requested the Taluka Executive Magistrate, to conduct inquest panchanama. PW-29, Jackson D’Souza, conducted the investigation in part and then handed over the charge to PW-30, Police Inspector. When the spot panchanama and inquest panchanama were being conducted, it appears that CW-17, Smt.Shakuntala saw the accused standing in the crowd and started shouting at him that she saw him entering the house of the deceased in the morning wearing pink shirt and now he is wearing white uyj7shirt. 3. When the spot panchanama and inquest panchanama were being conducted, it appears that CW-17, Smt.Shakuntala saw the accused standing in the crowd and started shouting at him that she saw him entering the house of the deceased in the morning wearing pink shirt and now he is wearing white uyj7shirt. 3. During the process of investigation, the police collected finger prints of all the residents in the apartment, neighbourhood and persons who were frequenting the house like newspaper vendors, milk vendors etc., Since CW-17 had suspected the accused, his finger prints were also taken. Nevertheless, the finger prints found in the house did not match the finger prints of the accused. However, amongst the material objects collected from the body of the deceased and from the spot, a broken finger nail was also collected along with many items like one gold ear ring, one gold spring neck chain, hair strands etc., 4. During the course of the investigation, since the police suspected the accused, a requisition was made to the Court to permit collection of blood sample from the accused for DNA profiling with the hair strands and finger nail that were found at the spot. The blood sample of the accused was collected in the Court and was sent for DNA profiling. Although, the hair strands and the sample of the saliva said to have been found on the dead body of the deceased along with bite marks did not match with the blood of the accused, nevertheless, it was opined that the finger nail, M.O.12 which was sent as item No.6 for DNA profiling did match with the DNA extracted from the blood of the accused. The accused was then arrested on 23.12.2011 and his voluntary statement was recorded. The accused admitted his guilt and said he had deposited Rs. 4,00,000/-in IDBI Bank. Thereafter, it was also verified from the IDBI Bank that the accused had deposited Rs. 4,00,000/-in his account No.069104000097556, out of the amount which he had taken away from the house of the deceased and had withdrawn the said amount on two days i.e., on 05.02.2010 and 09.02.2010. In order to destroy the evidence, he has closed the said account on 09.02.2010. Later, on 05.07.2011, he has opened another account i.e., account No.0069104000129541 and deposited Rs. 2,00,000/-into the said account on 06.07.2011. In order to destroy the evidence, he has closed the said account on 09.02.2010. Later, on 05.07.2011, he has opened another account i.e., account No.0069104000129541 and deposited Rs. 2,00,000/-into the said account on 06.07.2011. Charge-sheet was filed on 13.03.2012, against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 376, 511, 394, 302 and 201 of the IPC. 5. Consequently, the allegation against the respondent-accused is that he being the son of the proprietor of Jain Marbles, where the husband of the deceased was working, was aware of the fact that his father trusted the husband of the deceased and he used to keep cash for safe custody. The accused, having known this fact called the deceased on her mobile phone at 8 minutes past 11 a.m. Thereafter, he went on his Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-25/W-6930 and requested that she should give him Rs. 50,000/-which belonged to his father. He said that the amount should be accounted to Jain Marbles. When the deceased went towards the bedroom and opened the almirah to take out Rs. 50,000/-as requested by the accused, the accused followed her into the bedroom and lured her to have sexual intercourse with him. However, when the deceased resisted, the accused assaulted the deceased with his fist. In order to prevent the deceased from screaming, he closed the mouth of the deceased with his right hand. However, the deceased struggled and in the process, a part of the nail of little finger of the accused was cut. During the struggle, the accused bit the deceased on her shoulder. When the deceased fell to the ground, the accused pulled the deceased and struck her head on the wall and wardrobe. The deceased started bleeding from her head, mouth and nose. The deceased breathed her last. Thereafter, the accused picked up a bag that was lying in the bedroom and put into it the cash that was lying in the almirah which amounted to Rs. 5,42,000/-along with gold ornaments weighing 49 grams worth Rs. 73,000/-and went away on his motorcycle. The accused went to his house and kept the bag in his almirah in the bed room. He thereafter took bath and washed the pink shirt which he was wearing thereby destroying the evidence. Thereafter, in order to find out what was happening at the scene of murder, the accused once again went to the house of the deceased. The accused went to his house and kept the bag in his almirah in the bed room. He thereafter took bath and washed the pink shirt which he was wearing thereby destroying the evidence. Thereafter, in order to find out what was happening at the scene of murder, the accused once again went to the house of the deceased. The police, finger print experts, the spot panchas, inquest panchas, the Taluka Executive Magistrate and the dog squad were present at that time. CW-17 Shakuntala Bai, on seeing the accused shouted at him saying that he had earlier visited the house of the deceased in the morning wearing a pink shirt and now he has come wearing a white shirt. The police took the finger prints of the residents of the house and the neighbourers including that of the accused, probably because of the suspicion expressed by CW-17 Smt.Shakuntala Bai. 6. On behalf of the prosecution, 30 witnesses were examined, 68 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.68 were marked along with 23 material objects, including the piece of finger nail at M.O.12. The pink colour Nehru shirt said to have been worn by the accused at the time of commission of the crime was produced as M.O.4. The trial Court has held that the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. Though, PW-5 Smt. Shobha supported the prosecution to some extent, but she has denied that she saw the accused entering the house of the deceased. CWs-17 and 19 who had claimed that they had seen the accused entering the house of the deceased, were not examined. As regards the DNA report which held that the finger nail that was found on the spot belonged to the accused, the trial Court found that there is material contradiction with regard to the quantity of blood drawn and examined. It held that while the police were taking the finger prints of the accused as a matter of chance, it was not noticed that a finger nail was cut or missing. It was held that the blood stains on the pink shirt M.O.4 was also not proved as belonging to the accused or the deceased. The gold ornaments found on the deceased would go to prove that the assailant who committed the murder did not take away the gold ornaments found on the dead body. It was held that the blood stains on the pink shirt M.O.4 was also not proved as belonging to the accused or the deceased. The gold ornaments found on the deceased would go to prove that the assailant who committed the murder did not take away the gold ornaments found on the dead body. As regards the cash amount which was taken away along with some gold ornaments which were kept in the almirah, except the evidence of the complainant, there was no corroboration to this evidence. The trial Court, therefore, held that though the death is homicidal, but it cannot be said that it is the accused who committed the murder. Consequently, the accused was acquitted. 7. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, submits that although it is the case of the prosecution that the accused was present at the spot of the incident when the spot panchanama and inquest panchanama were being held and sniffer dog did not identify the accused, that by itself is not a conclusive proof of the innocence of the accused. It is submitted that the DNA report at Ex.P.42, has conclusively established the fact that item No.6 which is a broken finger nail which was found at the spot while the spot mahazar was drawn, matches with the DNA extracted from the blood sample item No.1 collected from the accused before the Court. This conclusion, coupled with the fact that a part of the amount taken away by the accused was found deposited in his bank account was sufficient to prove that the accused himself committed the offence. The call detail reports at Ex.P.65 and Ex.P.66 would also corroborate the fact that the accused had called the deceased at 8 minutes past 11 a.m. on the fateful day. 8. The call detail reports at Ex.P.65 and Ex.P.66 would also corroborate the fact that the accused had called the deceased at 8 minutes past 11 a.m. on the fateful day. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-accused would submit that the trial Court has noticed the following aspects and on the correct assessment of the evidence on record, it has rightly come to the conclusion that the chain of circumstances is not complete and what is more important is that the presence of the accused at the spot at the time of alleged commission of the offence, is not established: i) One sealed paper packet containing blood and one sealed paper packet containing pink coloured Nehru shirt which was sent for examination, the FSL report in that regard is not conclusive as against the accused; ii) The teeth bite mark contusion present over the front side of the right shoulder of the deceased could not be identified as that of the accused; iii) The Medical Officer, PW-25 who had drawn the blood sample of the accused in the Court for the purpose of DNA profiling, has stated that he had drawn only 2 ml of blood from the accused and stored it in a blood container in the Court hall in the presence of Magistrate and two panchas and it was handed over to the learned Magistrate. However, it is found that the Investigating Officer sent the blood samples in 3 blood containers to the DNA centre at Bengaluru after a lapse of nearly 4½ months; iv) The Medical Officer who had drawn the blood sample in the Court hall, in the presence of the Magistrate, was examined as PW-25 and he had clearly opined that any blood sample would lose its character after 21 days and it is completely degraded after 90 days. Therefore, the blood sample of the accused sent for DNA profiling was completely degraded and therefore, the conclusion drawn by the DNA experts, cannot be accepted; v) More over, when only 2 ml of blood was drawn in the presence of the Magistrate and stored in a 5 ml container, the fact that 3 tubes of blood sample containing 2 ml in each of the container was sent for DNA profiling, would show that the blood which was actually sent for examination is not the same which was drawn in the Court hall, in the presence of the Magistrate; vi) The sniffer dog did not identify or show suspicion by identifying the accused who was present at the spot when the mahazar was being drawn; vii) As per the FIR, it was registered at 4 p.m. and sent to the Court at 4.30 p.m. However, PW-15, the Police Constable who handed over the FIR has stated that the FIR was handed over to him at 8.30 p.m. and he delivered the same to the M agistrate at 10 p.m.; viii) The chance finger print of the accused which was taken did not match with the finger prints found in the scene of occurrence; ix) In fact, the finger prints found on the almirah were that of the complainant, the husband of the deceased. The accused and his father were subjected to polygraphy tests and the reports were negative; x) There is discrepancy in the colour of the chudidaar pant said to have been worn by the deceased and one sent for expert examination and FSL report; xi) Although it is alleged by the prosecution that the accused had deposited Rs.4 lakhs in his account in IDBI bank, as per Exs.P.54, 55 and 56, however, none of the witnesses have spoken about the said aspect and the authors of Exs.P.54 and 55 are not examined; xii) It is clear from the P.M. report and the evidence of the doctor, PW-23 that signs of rape are missing and therefore, the allegation against the accused having committed rape on the deceased is ruled out; xiii) CW-17, who is said to have identified the accused as the person wearing pink shirt and entering the house of the deceased in the morning and thereafter, coming back when the spot mahazar was being conducted, with a white shirt, is not examined. Similarly, CW-19, whose statement was recorded by the police, has not been examined; xiv) PW-5, Smt.Shobha, who is the daughter-in-law of PW-17 though supported the case of the prosecution, she has stated that she did not see the accused entering the house of the deceased in the morning; xv) The FSL report and DNA test report based on the sample hair collected from the spot, the swab taken from the dead body including the mouth, the saliva present along the bite mark on the shoulder of the deceased and the footprint impression found at the spot have not established any link with the accused. 9. The trial Court has come to a conclusion that if the finger impressions of the accused was taken along with the other inmates of the house, neighbourers and persons frequenting the house of the deceased, it could have been noticed by the experts that one finger nail was missing from the right hand of the accused. No such information is forthcoming. Consequently, the trial Court concluded that although the death of the deceased is homicidal, however, it cannot be said that it is the accused who committed the murder. It has also concluded that there is no material that the accused has tampered or destroyed any evidence. Going by the established principles of law governing a case of circumstantial evidence, that the circumstances must be cogently and firmly established; those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; the chain of circumstances should be so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and the circumstantial evidence, in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence; the trial Court has concluded that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. 10. We have heard the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State, learned counsel, Shri.Raviraj C.Patil for the respondent-accused and perused the trial Court records. 11. Certain chronological events deserve to be stated before analyzing the case on hand. 12. 10. We have heard the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State, learned counsel, Shri.Raviraj C.Patil for the respondent-accused and perused the trial Court records. 11. Certain chronological events deserve to be stated before analyzing the case on hand. 12. The incident has occurred on 24.08.2009 between 10.30 a.m. to 1.20 p.m. and the complaint is given by the husband of the deceased, against unknown persons, since there is no eyewitness. The statements of CW-16 Jayanthilal, CW-14 Smt.Bindu, CW-15 Rajendrakumar, CW-17 Smt.Shakuntala and many other persons were recorded on the same day. The FSL reports were concluded on 23.12.2009. Since no clue was forthcoming, the investigation was kept going. Since some clue was found by the Investigating Officer that the accused person is the culprit, a notice under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C. was issued by the Investigating Officer to the accused to present himself before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 16.07.2010 to enable collection of blood sample in the presence of the jurisdictional Magistrate and accordingly, the blood sample of accused was collected by following the procedure. 13. The DNA report was finalized on 29.11.2011 and based on the said report, the accused was arrested on 23.12.2011 and voluntary statement of the accused was recorded. The call detail reports of the accused and the deceased were collected. On 24.12.2011, the bank account statement of the accused was collected from IDBI bank as per Ex.P61, which shows that on 28.08.2009, 4 days after the incident, the accused deposited Rs. 4,00,000/-into his account. He withdrew Rs. 1,80,000/-on 05.02.2010 and Rs. 2,25,141/-on 09.02.2010, by presenting self-cheques. In order to destroy the evidence, on 09.02.2010, he has closed account No.0069104000097556 and on 05.07.2011, he has opened new account No.0069104000129541 as per Ex.P60 and on 06.07.2011, he deposited Rs. 2,00,000/-into his new account and again withdrew Rs. 2,00,000/-on 15.07.2011. 14. Exs.P.60 and P61 which are the statements of the Bank account maintained by the accused in IDBI Bank shows that the accused had deposited Rs. 4,00,000/-on 28.08.2009, i.e., four days after the incident. Accused is not having any explanation for the large sum of amount suddenly coming to his hands enabling him to deposit the same in his account. In the opinion of this Court, this is a vital piece of evidence which is admissible in terms of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 4,00,000/-on 28.08.2009, i.e., four days after the incident. Accused is not having any explanation for the large sum of amount suddenly coming to his hands enabling him to deposit the same in his account. In the opinion of this Court, this is a vital piece of evidence which is admissible in terms of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The accused has given the information to the police that he had deposited Rs. 4,00,000/-from out of the money that he had taken away from the almirah in the house of the complainant. This discovery is a consequence of the information received from the accused. Exs.P.60 and P61 are the extract of the bank account pertaining to “Rakesh J. Chopra”, the accused herein, which bears the seal and signature of the Manager of the IDBI Bank Limited, Giriraj Annexe, Travellers Bungalow Road, Hubballi-580029. The information available in Exs.P.60 and P61 corroborates with the information provided by the accused to the police. No doubt, the Manager or any other official of the IDBI Bank is not examined in this regard, nevertheless, in the considered opinion of this Court, Exs.P.60 and P61 which bear the signature and seal of the Manager of IDBI Bank is the extracts of the Savings Bank accounts pertaining to Rakesh J.Chopra, the accused. This fact need not be further proved, in terms of Section 58 of the Evidence Act. The discovery of the money deposited in the Bank account of the accused person is on the basis of his own admission in the voluntary statement given before the police. Ex.P60 and P61 also evidence the fact that before the deposit of Rs. 4,00,000/-was made in to the account of the accused, there was paltry balance of Rs. 386/-in the account. This lends credence to the motive of the accused, that he was in need of money as he was constructing house. Based on his voluntary statement that he gave order for purchase of glass for the windows, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of the owner of the shop and he has given evidence as PW25 i.e.,Ravi Dalabhanjan that, about 4-5 years prior to his evidence accused purchased glass from his shop. After visiting the house of the accused, he has identified the glass fitted in his house as the one purchased from his shop. 15. After visiting the house of the accused, he has identified the glass fitted in his house as the one purchased from his shop. 15. Another vital piece of evidence is the broken finger nail of the accused, found at the scene of offence. On this aspect, the learned counsel representing the respondent/accused argued that, when the inquest was conducted by the Taluka Executive Magistrate, he has not found any nail and the nail piece in question was discovered by the Investigating Officer during the spot mahazer. It is relevant to note that, under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Taluka Executive Magistrate is required to conduct inquest proceedings in the presence of two or more witnesses and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds, fractures, bruises and other marks of injury as may be found on the body and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument (if any), such marks appears to have been inflicted. On the other hand, the Investigating Officer who is required to go into the details of the case, is expected to conduct a thorough search of the scene of occurrence to lay his hand on any vital evidence that may be available at the spot, especially when there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. Consequently, we cannot find fault with the Taluka Executive Magistrate not finding or the Investigating Officer finding the finger nail of the accused, which ultimately became an important link to connect the respondent-accused to the crime in question. 16. PW-2, Praveen Sangai, is the panch witness for the spot mahazar drawn on 24.08.2009 at 7.10 p.m. to 8.40 p.m., i.e., on the date of the incident. In his evidence, he has deposed that the material objects collected from the spot includes a broken piece of finger nail which is found at Item No.10 in the spot mahazar. This piece of finger nail along with the hair strands that were collected from the spot were sent for DNA examination alongwith the blood samples collected from the accused in the open court of the Committal Court. This piece of finger nail along with the hair strands that were collected from the spot were sent for DNA examination alongwith the blood samples collected from the accused in the open court of the Committal Court. The DNA report Ex.P.47 gives the following conclusion: 1) xxx xxx 2) The hairs sent in Item No.5 and finger nail sent in Item No.6 are of human in origin and of male sex, 3) The DNA profile of the sample blood collected from Shri Rakesh Chopra s/o Sri Jayantilal Chopra, sample blood sent in Item No.1, the alleles in 15 STR loci were matching in all the 15 STR loci with that of the DNA profile of the finger nail sent in Item No.6. 17. Further, on the basis of such conclusion, the Scientific Officer has opined that the sample blood sent in Item No.1 collected from Shri Rakesh Chopra S/o Jayanthilal is the contributor of the finger nail sent in Item No.6. 18. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial Court has noticed the discrepancy that though only 2 ml of blood sample was collected from the accused in the Court hall, in the presence of the Magistrate, however, what was sent for DNA examination is 3 tubes of blood sample containing 2 ml each. It was further contended that the blood samples having been sent after a delay of about 4½ months was degraded to such an extent that it was not fit for examination. The deposition of the Medical Officer, PW-25 has been relied in this regard. 19. PW.25 Dr.Liyakat Kagadagar, was the Medical Officer present when the blood sample of accused was collected on 16.07.2010 in the Court hall, in the presence of the jurisdictional Magistrate. During his cross-examination, this witness has stated that, blood was collected only in one blood sample bottle. Banking on it, the learned counsel representing the respondent-accused submits that the evidence of this witness is contrary to the DNA report as well as the evidence of PW27 Dr.Vinod, Assistant Director, Toxicology Section, Forensic Science Laboratory, Bengaluru, who has stated that, three sealed vaccutainer containing sample blood was sent to him. Banking on it, the learned counsel representing the respondent-accused submits that the evidence of this witness is contrary to the DNA report as well as the evidence of PW27 Dr.Vinod, Assistant Director, Toxicology Section, Forensic Science Laboratory, Bengaluru, who has stated that, three sealed vaccutainer containing sample blood was sent to him. However, the order sheet maintained by the committal Magistrate, before whom the blood sample was collected, establishes the fact that, twice 5ml each of blood was drawn through syringe and put into 3 separate sterilized tubes subjected to preservative method. Therefore, the evidence of PW25 Dr. Liyakat Kagadgar to the contrary is incorrect. If at all he was unable to recollect what exactly was the amount of blood drawn from the accused, he could have referred to the court records. At least the learned Public Prosecutor could have re-examined him referring to the court records. 20. Through the cross-examination of PW.25, the learned counsel representing the accused has elicited information that the blood so collected would remain intact only for 21 days with preservative and after 21 days it loses some of its characteristics and after 90 days, the blood will lose all its characteristics and thereby suggesting that the blood sample which was sent to the FSL after 4½ months had lost all its characteristics and thereby not useful for detecting the DNA of the accused. It is pertinent to note that PW.25 is not a DNA expert. He is only a Medical Officer working in the Government Hospital. Interestingly the learned counsel representing the respondent-accused has not cross-examined PW.27 Dr.Vinod, who is an expert competent to speak about the duration for which the blood sample collected from the accused would be intact and useful for DNA profiling. Therefore, the evidence of PW.25 Dr.Liyakat Kagadgar to the contrary is not of any assistance to the defence of the accused. 21. As discussed above, in the considered opinion of this Court, both these contentions are legally not tenable. In view of the proceedings before the Committal Court regarding drawing up of blood sample from the accused, the evidence of PW25, the doctor who collected the blood sample from the accused in the Court that he collected only 2 ml blood from the accused and filled it into only one blood container sample bottle is incorrect. 22. In view of the proceedings before the Committal Court regarding drawing up of blood sample from the accused, the evidence of PW25, the doctor who collected the blood sample from the accused in the Court that he collected only 2 ml blood from the accused and filled it into only one blood container sample bottle is incorrect. 22. The other limb of the argument addressed on behalf of the respondent-accused that after 90 days, the blood sample would degrade to such an extent that it was not fit for examination, if accepted, such deterioration due to delay should only benefit the accused and the prosecution should be pulled up for delaying the examination of the blood sample. 23. Per contra, the learned Addl. SPP has furnished a piece of information published by the Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association regarding, “The quality of DNA extracted from liquid or dried blood is not adversely affected by storage of 40C for up to 24 hours”. This is a paper presented on the storage of DNA. It is opined that ideally a sample would be taken from a subject and placed immediately into storage but in practice there will always be a delay between sample collection and sample processing. It is important to determine whether this delay introduces changes into the results obtained from the sample. Therefore, a first aim of this study was to assess the impact, on extracted DNA quality and quantity, of the storage of blood at 40 C for up to 24 hours prior to the harvesting of white blood cells or the spotting of blood on to a blood collection card. Data is available to indicate that DNA can be successfully extracted from dried blood spots, which have been stored for atleast 10 years. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the accused to the contrary is not tenable. 24. It is also pertinent to note that the doubt expressed by the defence should have been put to PW-27, Dr.Vinod, who is the Assistant Director, Toxicology, Forensic Science Laboratory, Bengaluru, who has conducted the DNA profiling and deposed on it. As discussed above, no such question has been put to PW-27, who is the expert in the matter of DNA profiling. As discussed above, no such question has been put to PW-27, who is the expert in the matter of DNA profiling. Even otherwise, as we expressed earlier, if delay in sending the blood samples would degrade the blood sample to such an extent that it would give wrong reading or the reading would be misleading, then the benefit would go to the accused as the result would be in the negative as against the accused. However, no such doubt is expressed by the DNA expert. The opinion is clearly against the accused. 25. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the accused that while recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., it was not put to him that the broken finger nail found at the scene of occurrence belongs to him and that the blood sample drawn from him matched with the finger nail. This argument cannot be accepted, since at question No.31 in the 313 statement, it was clearly put to the accused that PW-27, Dr.Vinod Lakkappa had stated in his evidence that the finger nail collected from the scene of occurrence matched with the blood sample collected from the accused. The accused has answered to the said question stating it as false. Therefore, when opportunity was given to the accused to explain how his nail was found at the scene of occurrence, the accused has simply denied the suggestion. 26. In the considered opinion of this Court, these two important piece of evidence, the discovery of the money deposited by the accused after stealing the same from the house of the deceased and the finger nail of the accused found at the scene of occurrence, is sufficient to conclude that the circumstantial evidence is so complete that it firmly establishes the guilt of the accused. Cumulatively, the circumstances form a chain so complete that it could be concluded that the crime is committed by the accused and none else. 27. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent/accused in the case of AJIT SAVANT MAJAGVAI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (1997) 7 SCC 110 , HARBEER SINGH VS. SHEESHPAL reported in (2016) 16 SCC 418 , HEM RAJ VS. STATE OF PUNJAB reported in (2003) 12 SCC 241 , NARENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF M.P., reported in (2004) 10 SCC 699 and ASHISH BATHAM VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (1997) 7 SCC 110 , HARBEER SINGH VS. SHEESHPAL reported in (2016) 16 SCC 418 , HEM RAJ VS. STATE OF PUNJAB reported in (2003) 12 SCC 241 , NARENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF M.P., reported in (2004) 10 SCC 699 and ASHISH BATHAM VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH reported in (2002) 7 SCC 317 , are all decisions regarding the principles which govern and regulate the law on circumstantial evidence. A word of caution is given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, while reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court has to keep in view the fact that the presumption of innocence is still available in favour of the accused and the same stands fortified and strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial Court; if on fresh scrutiny and reappraisal of the evidence and other material on record, if the High Court is of the opinion that there is another view which can be reasonably taken, then the view which favours the accused should be adopted; where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person; the circumstances from which inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn, they have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances; if the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, pieces of circumstances, however strong may be, it is well known that all links in the chain must be proved. 28. Having regard to such established principles of law governing a case based on circumstantial evidence, we are of the considered opinion that the pieces of circumstances, in the light of the evidence on record, form a complete chain, firmly establishing that it is the accused and accused alone who has committed the crime, causing the homicidal death of the deceased, Smt.Roopa. 29. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent-accused is guilty of murder of the deceased Smt.Roopa, punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The allegation of rape under Section 376 of the I.P.C. is not proved. 29. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent-accused is guilty of murder of the deceased Smt.Roopa, punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The allegation of rape under Section 376 of the I.P.C. is not proved. The accused is also found guilty of offence punishable under Section 394 I.P.C. Hence we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal filed by the State is allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is set aside. To hear on sentence. ORDER ON SENTENCE 1. On 15.07.2021, this Court pronounced the judgment and allowed the appeal filed by the State. Consequently the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court in S.C.No.104/2012 was set aside. We had directed non-bailable warrant against the respondent-accused and the matter is posted today to hear on sentence. 2. The respondent-accused is produced by Sri. V. M. Samorekar, ASI and Sri. H. I. Jorammanavar, Head Constable No.1488 of Hubballi Town police Station. 3. Regarding sentence, learned counsel for the respondent-accused submits that, on going through the judgment passed by this Court, it is clear that, this does not fall under the rarest of rare cases as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the sentence under Section 302 of IPC. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that, although under Section 302 of IPC, if the case does not fall under the category of rarest of rare cases, imprisonment for life is to be imposed, nevertheless, the learned counsel submits that the respondent-accused was in judicial custody from 23.12.2011 to 21.11.2012. Subsequent to the acquittal, the respondent-accused got married and he has a child of about 7 months. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent-accused has to take care of his wife and child and his parents and grand parents. Therefore, it is submitted that a lenient view may be taken. 4. Per contra, learned Addl. SPP submits that, when sentence has to be imposed under Section 302 of IPC, there are only two options, either death penalty or imprisonment for life. The learned Addl. SPP therefore submits that, if this Court is convinced that this case does not fall under the rarest of rare cases, then the sentence of imprisonment for life is the only sentence that can be passed by this Court. The learned Addl. SPP therefore submits that, if this Court is convinced that this case does not fall under the rarest of rare cases, then the sentence of imprisonment for life is the only sentence that can be passed by this Court. All other submissions at the hands of learned counsel for respondent-accused cannot be accepted and that cannot form a basis for awarding any other sentence under Section 302 of IPC. 5. Further, the learned Addl. SPP would submit that, this Court has also convicted the respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC, which provides that the accused, who has committed robbery, voluntarily causing hurt, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to pay fine. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respondent-accused and the learned Addl. SPP, we are of the considered opinion that the case does not fall under the category of rarest of rare cases as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme court in various judgments. 7. Therefore, under Section 302 of IPC, the respondent-accused is sentence to undergo imprisonment for life. For the offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC, we sentence the respondent-accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years. The respondent-accused shall pay fine of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each under Sections 302 and 394 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, the respondent-accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year each. Both substantive imprisonments shall run concurrently. The respondent-accused is entitled for the benefit of set off for the period during which he is in judicial custody during the trial, in terms of Section 428 of Cr.P.C. 8. At this juncture, learned counsel for the respondent-accused prays that the sentence may be suspended till the accused approaches the Hon’ble Apex Court, since according to him, the respondent-accused has a good case on merits. However, the learned Addl. SPP objected to this submission, by pointing out to Section 389(3) of Cr.P.C., that suspension of sentence by an Appellate Court or even by the trial Court, of its own order, is permissible only if the person is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years and not in any case, where the sentence of imprisonment is more than three years. The learned counsel for the respondent-accused would submit that the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., R/w. Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not place any fetter on the powers of this Court to suspend its sentence. 9. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent-accused and the learned Addl. SPP in the matter of suspension of sentence, we are not convinced that, this is a case where we could exercise our inherent powers to suspend the sentence of imprisonment for life. Therefore, the said submission of the learned counsel is rejected. 10. The registry is directed to issue warrant of commitment (conviction warrant) to the prison. 11. A copy of this judgment shall be furnished to the respondent-accused forthwith, free of cost.