JUDGMENT : A.J.DESAI, J. 1. By way of this appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, the appellant-accused has challenged the judgement and order dated 04.01.2013 passed by the learned District and Sessions Court (Special Court), Surendranagar in Special Atrocity Case No.53 of 2010 (New Special Atrocity Case No.22 of 2012), by which, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to undergone sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment; under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to undergo sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment and under section 404 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to undergo sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment 2. Facts, emerge from the records of the case, are as under : 2.1 That one Nirmalsinh Balvantsinh Parmar resident of Village: Muli, Taluka: Surendranagar lodged an FIR with Muli Police Station on 01/08/2010 stating that when he along with his friends had gone for daily morning routine in the sim of village : Muli itself at around 6:30 hours, at the distance of 2 kms from Muli, he found a deadbody of a girl lying under a tree. He also disclosed that he found two rexine bags near the deadbody and when all of them saw the body, they found that she was done to death by several knief blows and found a cover of knief lying there. They also found an I-card of the girl of Uma PTC College wherein name of the deceased was written as “Muniya Shital B.”. PSO handed over the investigation of a crime to Dadhubhai Kanjibhai Vasva, who was working as PSI at Muli Police Station, who prepared Inquest Panchnama and sent deadbody for post-mortem at Government Hospital of Muli and handed over further investigation to another PSI Keshavlal Parshottambhai Doshi - PW-36. PSO handed over the investigation of a crime to Dadhubhai Kanjibhai Vasva, who was working as PSI at Muli Police Station, who prepared Inquest Panchnama and sent deadbody for post-mortem at Government Hospital of Muli and handed over further investigation to another PSI Keshavlal Parshottambhai Doshi - PW-36. Having revealed about the identity of the deceased, the parents of the deceased, who are resident of Ahmedabad, were called at Muli and on completion of formalities, deadbody was handed over to them. The statements of parents of the deceased were recorded on 01/08/2010. Investigating Officer also recorded statements of the roommates of the deceased, with whom, the deceased was residing at Rajkot on the same day. 2.2 Since there was no eye-witness to the crime and the deceased was permanent resident of Ahmedabad and was studying at Rajkot, the case was initially investigated by LCB, Surendranagar. As per the say of PSI (LCB, Surendranagar) Pareshbhai Ishawarbhai Solanki, PW-33, having received some information about the probability of involvement of the present appellant-accused, the appellant came to be arrested by the Investigating Officer on 03/08/2010 from Ahmedabad. Several statements were recorded and ultimately charge-sheet was submitted before the competent court, who in turn committed the case to learned Sessions Judge having jurisdiction to try the offences in question. 2.3 Charge Exh-9 came to be framed by learned Sessions Judge on 15/03/2011, which was denied by the accused. Prosecution proceeded with the trial. Prosecution examined in all 38 witnesses whereas the appellant-accused did not examine any witness in his defence. Further statement u/s.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by the learned Trial Court. Learned Sessions Juge after scrutinising the deposition of the witnesses and evidence produced and proved by the prosecution came to the conclusion that the appellant-accused is only person, who is involved in the crime and had committed the offence and accordingly he has been convicted and sentenced. Hence, this appeal. 2.4 The appeal came to be admitted on 17/06/2013. Registry received paperbook along with original record & proceedings of Special Atrocity Case No.53 of 2010 (New Special Atrocity Case No.22 of 2012). 3. Since the appellant was convicted under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Atrocities) Act, Notice was issued to the father of the deceased, who has been represented through Legal Aid Committee by learned Advocate Mr.Niraj Soni. 3. Since the appellant was convicted under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Atrocities) Act, Notice was issued to the father of the deceased, who has been represented through Legal Aid Committee by learned Advocate Mr.Niraj Soni. 4.1 Mr.Hardik Dave, learned advocate appearing with Mr.Pawan Barot, learned advocate appearing for the appellant would submit that it is an undisputed fact that the case is totally based on circumstantial evidence. He would submit that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish entire chain of circumstances, which would result into believing by the Court that only and only the present appellant had committed the crime. 4.2 He would submit that the case put forward by the prosecution is that the appellant, who is a married person, had love affiar with the deceased and since the deceased wants to marry another person, the appellant, who is resident of Ahmedabad, called the deceased from Rajkot to Chotila on 31/07/2010 and thereafter, on 01/08/2010 after travelling from Chotila to Muli in the sim of the said town, the incident had taken place. By taking us through the depositions of several witnesses and in breach of mandatory provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, he would submit that learned Trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offences in absence of any direct or circumstantial evidence. He would submit that as per the deposition of Pareshbhai Iswarbhai Solanki, PW-33, Exh-90, who was working as PSI, LCB Branch of Surendranagar, that he could trace out the involvement of the appellant with the help of some information and CDR of mobile, which belongs to the deceased as well as the appellant. However, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish about any mobile instrument and/or mobile number allegedly belongs to the deceased Shitalben. He would submit that the appellant came to be arrested on 03/08/2010 only on ground of suspicion raised by the Kapilaben w/o Bhurabhai Limbabhai, mother of the decased, who has been examined as PW-18, Exh-65. By taking us through her deposition, he would submit that she has referred one mobile number from which her deceased daughter Shital had called just prior to two or three days. She has also referred a mobile number 9712723365, however, prosecution has miserably failed to produce any material qua the said number. By taking us through her deposition, he would submit that she has referred one mobile number from which her deceased daughter Shital had called just prior to two or three days. She has also referred a mobile number 9712723365, however, prosecution has miserably failed to produce any material qua the said number. He would submit that in her cross-examination, she has admitted that she was aware about love affair between the appellant and her daughter Shital as well as threats have been given to the deceased not to marry against his Will. However, no complaint was filed to the police station, which creats doubt about her say about so called relationship. 4.3 By taking us through the deposition of father of the deceased Bhurabhai Limbabhai PW-19, Exh-66, he would submit that his wife had informed him about so called relationship between the appellant and the deceased and threats allegedly given by the appellant. However, no complain was lodged with the Police Station though he was working as Police Constable in Railway Police Force and therefore, his version also creats doubt about the so called love affair between the appellant and the deceased. 4.4 By taking us through the deposition of roommate of the deceased namely Priyaben daughter of Sukkarbhai Rathod - PW-29 Exh- 77, he would submit that her say is to be discarded on the ground that she had not disclosed anything about so called relationship between the appellant and the deceased on 01/08/2010 when her statement was initially recorded. However, after the arrest of the appellant, her further statement was recorded on 06/08/2010, wherein she has disclosed about relationship of the appellant with the deceased. This aspect has been admitted by her in her cross-examination. He would submit that as per the say of this witness, the present appellant had vistied the residence (room) around Diwali period, where the deceased had shared the room with her, wherein the appellant was introduced by the deceased as her cousin. However, prosecution has not arranged for any test identification parade. He would submit that as per the say of this witness, the present appellant had vistied the residence (room) around Diwali period, where the deceased had shared the room with her, wherein the appellant was introduced by the deceased as her cousin. However, prosecution has not arranged for any test identification parade. In such circumstances, to strengthen the case and/or to establish the so called relationship and visit of the appellant at the room, investigating officer ought to have arranged for Test Identification Parade though she might have identified the appellant in the court room for the first time during her deposition where the appellant was the only person sitting in the area meant for the accused in the court room. 4.5 He would further submit that similar is the say of the another roommate namely Ms.Shobhanaben daughter Bapjibhai Patel, PW-30, Exh-78, who also did not disclose anything on 01/08/2010 about the so called relationship, however, she has stated only in her further statement on 06/08/2010. There is no test identification parade at her instance by the prosecution. All these three witnesses namely Kapilaben, Priyaben and Shobhanaben have stated that the deceased Shitalben was engaged to one Pintubhai @ Rakeshbhai Ransingbhai, who has been examined as PW-23, Exh-70, however, the said Pintubhai has not supported the case of prosecution and was declared hostile by the learned Trial Court. He therefore would submit that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the motive alleged against the appellant that he was against the marriage of the deceased with Pintu and therefore, he has committed this crime. 4.6 He would further submit that the prosecution has heavily relied upon oral as well as documentary evidence in the nature of say of the one witness, the Manager of the Guest House at Chotila. He would submit that the appellant had stayed at Gaurav Guest House on 31/07/2010 and for the same, to identify himself and for address proof, a xerox copy of the licence and his mobile number was supplied to the Manager, which is recorded in the register maintained by the Hotel. He would submit that the appellant had stayed at Gaurav Guest House on 31/07/2010 and for the same, to identify himself and for address proof, a xerox copy of the licence and his mobile number was supplied to the Manager, which is recorded in the register maintained by the Hotel. By taking us through the deposition of the Manager of the said Guest House namely Mr.Gauravbhai Sudhirbhai Vora PW-25, Exh-72, he would submit that it is true that he has stayed at Gaurav Guest House, however, he was accompanied by his wife and both of them have gone to Chotila for pilgrimage and to visit well known temple of the said town Chotila. He would submit that learned Trial Court has committed a grave error in believing that the reference made in the register about presence of one woman was the deceased only, since Investigating Officer has neither tried to show any photograph of the deceased to him nor I-Card of the deceased, which was recovered along with the deadbody. He would submit that it is alleged by the prosecution that the appellant had used the motor cycle, which is referred in the hotel register at Exh-73 and other details. However, there is no further help to prosecution about use of the said motor cycle, allegedly used by the appellant in travelling from Chotila to Muli. He therefore would submit that the prosecution has miserably failed in establishing the presence of the deceased in Gaurav Guest House at Chotila on 31/07/2010. 4.7 He would further submit that the appellant was brought to Muli Police Station by Pareshbhai Solanki (LCB Inspector), where Deputy Superintendent of Police, SCST Cell, who was investigating the case subsequent to initial investigation by his predecessar Mr.Joshi, who arrested the appellant on the same day. By taking us through the deposition of said Dy.S.P., SCST Cell namely Ramanbhai Singabhai Bhagora, PW-38 Exh.100, he would submit that during his police remand period, motorcycle belongs to the appellant allegedly used in the crime was discovered. He would submit that the appellant was arrested on 04/08/2010 at 00:00 hours as per the arrest panchnama at Exh-28. By taking us through the deposition of said Dy.S.P., SCST Cell namely Ramanbhai Singabhai Bhagora, PW-38 Exh.100, he would submit that during his police remand period, motorcycle belongs to the appellant allegedly used in the crime was discovered. He would submit that the appellant was arrested on 04/08/2010 at 00:00 hours as per the arrest panchnama at Exh-28. However, as per the case of the prosecution, when the PSI, LCB, Surendranagar along with the Panch witnesses had visited the house of the appellant at Ahmedabad, they have traced out driving licence issued in the name of the appellant as well as mobile having IMI No.358125/03/231811/8. However, second mobile, which is allegedly used by the deceased was not discovered on the same day i.e. on 03/08/2010 itself. However, after his arrest on 03/08/2010 by the Investigating Officer, Deputy Superintendent of Police, SCST Cell, prepared another panchnama Exh-31 in presence of the panchas of the house of the appellant, who is residing with his father and found out another mobile having IMI No.35882400/010464/7. At the time of preparing the said panchnama, though the appellant was in the custody, he was not brought at the place of panchnama and the same was found under some files, which creates doubts about such recovery and particularly when no documentary evidence has been produced by the Investigating Agency about the ownership of second mobile, which was allegedly recovered on 05/08/2010. 4.8 He would further submit that the case put forward by the prosecution is that the knief allegedly used in the crime was purchased from the shop at Chotila by the appellant and to establish the said aspect, the prosecution has examined two witnesses namely Hareshbhai Chhanabhai Chauhan PW-26 Exh-72 - owner of the shop as well as Bharatbhai Najbhai Khachar PW-27, Exh-75 employee of the said Hareshbhai. By taking us through their depositions, he would submit that the owner has admitted in his cross-examination that the knief was not sold in his presence and he has not issued any bill whereas the employee has admitted in his cross-examination that the bill was supplied to the police by him, which is produced on record. By taking us through their depositions, he would submit that the owner has admitted in his cross-examination that the knief was not sold in his presence and he has not issued any bill whereas the employee has admitted in his cross-examination that the bill was supplied to the police by him, which is produced on record. He would submit that both of them have admitted that there are number of similar type of knieves, which are being sold in the market and there are no specific marking showing the fact that the knief/s having been sold from their store only. He would further submit that the employee namely Bharatbhai Najbhai Khachar as per his own say, he could identify the appellant in the court room, however investigating agency has not cared to hold any test identification parade and hence, prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the appellant had purchased the knief used in the crime from the shop located in Chotila itself. 4.9 He would submit that learned Trial Court has committed an error in accepting discovery of the clothes, which were allegedly wore by the appellant-accused at the time of commission of offence and knief used therein lying near the scene of offence at the near distance of Muli, in view of the fact that panch witnesses of the said panchnama has not supported the case and were declared hostile by the prosecution. He would submit that no blood stains have been found on those clothes, which were discovered at the instance of the appellant-accused. He would further submit that as per the serological report Exh-116, blood stains have been found on the knief having blood group “A”. The blood group found on the clothes of the deceased is also having blood group “A” whereas blood group of the appellant is also from the same group i.e. “A” group, but that itself would not establish that the appellant is the only person, who has committed the crime, in absence of any other chain of circumstances. 4.10 Mr.Hardik Dave, learned advocate for the appellant has vehementally submitted that learned Trial Court has committed a grave error in relying upon the statement made before the Medical Officer Dr.Kumar Ashit - PW-14 Exh-49, before whom, the appellant has allegedly made an extra judicial confession about commiting an offence and during the incident, he had sustained injury on his fingure. In view of the fact that when he was taken for examination before the said doctor, he was under police custody and therefore, such confession would hit by Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. It cannot be said that the whatever is recorded in the history paper with regard to the treatment given by the said Doctor is an extra judicial confession particularly when the police officer was present at the time of treatment given by the said medical officer. 4.11 It was vehementally argued by learned advocate Mr.Dave that there is a serious breach by Investigating Officer of mandatory provision of section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act. He would submit that it is alleged that one mobile being mobile No.7567686276 belongs to the deceased. However, no material in whatever manner is produced by the investigating agency. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the aforesaid number was used by the deceased and belonged to either deceased or her family members. He would further submit that the mobile, which was discovered on 05/08/2010 from the house of the appellant was having IMI No.35882400/010464/6, which was allegedly used by the deceased, is not established by any cogent evidence in absence of any material produced and proved by the prosecution witness. The CDR produced on record at Exh.108 has not been signed by any responsible officer of the company, who owned such mobile nor a single witness have been examined by the prosecution to prove the case as alleged. Apart from the above facts, even Certificate which is required to be submitted by the office under section 4 of Section 65(B) is also not produced on record and therefore, learned Sessions Judge has committed a grave error in accepting such evidence while dealing with the case on hand. 4.12 In support of his submissions, Mr.Dave, learned advocate for the appellant has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Harpal Singh alias Chhota Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2017 Cri.L.J. SC 551 as well as in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors. reported in AIR 2020 SC 4908 . By taking us through the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Harpal Singh (supra), he would submit that in absence of any Certificate issued under section 65B(4), such evidence is inadmissible. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors. reported in AIR 2020 SC 4908 . By taking us through the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Harpal Singh (supra), he would submit that in absence of any Certificate issued under section 65B(4), such evidence is inadmissible. The said ratio has been reconsidered in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (supra) wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that if any electronic record is produced as evidence, such Certificate is must and has held that even if oral evidence of such officers are recorded, it is in the nature of secondary evidence and looked into if Certificate under section 65 B(4) of the Act is produced and proved on record. 4.13 Mr.Hardik Dave, learned advocate for the appellant would submit that the theory put forward by the prosecution and believed by the learned Sessions Judge about the appellant seen in the company of the deceased prior to the date of incident and even on 30/07/2010 cannot be believed in view of the fact that one of the roommates, deposed that the appellant had allegedly visited the deceased prior to 30/07/2010 is a concocted story in view of the fact that none of the roommates have disclosed before police authority on 01/08/2010 i.e. at the first instance, when the Investigating Officer visited them and recorded their statements about disclosing the above facts however location of the mobile of the appellant could not found in the area of Rajkot on 30/07/2010. 4.14 He would further submit that Guest House owner was not shown the photograph of the deceased, who had allegedly accompanied the appellant and stayed at Chotila Guest House on 31/07/2010 and therefore, he would submit that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish any motive to commit the crime and entire chain of circumstances, which the court had no other option but to believe that the appellant is the only person, who had committed the crime at the time and place of the incident. 4.15 He would submit that the prosecution has miserably failed in establishing the complete chain and be able to prove beyond any doubt about the involvement of the appellant in the crime. 4.15 He would submit that the prosecution has miserably failed in establishing the complete chain and be able to prove beyond any doubt about the involvement of the appellant in the crime. 5.1 On the other hand, Mr.D.M.Devnani, learned APP has opposed this appeal and supported the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court while convicting the appellant in the serious offence of murder. He would submit that when the parents of the deceased came to know about deadbody lying near Muli and visited the place, they disclosed that the appellant, a married person, who residing in Ahmedabad itself and driving a rickshaw, used to harass the deceased daughter, who had informed her mother and therefore, LCB of Surendranagar immediately tried to get information about the appellant and ultimately, able to trace out the appellant within a couple of days and was apprehended by LCB, Surendranagar and on the same day i.e. on 03/08/2010, he discovered the mobile used by him. He would submit that the clothes as well as knief have been discovered at the instance of the appellant, which were lying within the area, where the deadbody was found. Blood stains have been found on the knief, which was sent to FSL and the deceased blood stains have been found on the knief, which is proved by serological report at Exh.116. 5.2 He would further submit that roommates have disclosed about exchange of phone calls between the appellant and the deceased and were aware about the harassment made at the instance of the appellant since he was not in favour of the deceased to marry with another person. He would submit that both the witnesses namely Priyaben and Shobhanaben have immediately disclosed about the aforesaid aspect when their further statements were recorded on 06/08/2010 and therefore, prosecution was able to establish the motive part in committing the crime, which has been rightly accepted by the learned Trial Court. He would submit that it is amply proved by the prosecution that the appellant had stayed at Gaurav Guest House on 30/07/2010 along with the girl, aged about 21 years and had left the Guest House in early morning on 01/08/2010 i.e. at about 4:00 hours on motorcycle of the appellant. The said aspect has been established by the prosecution by examining the Manager of Gaurav Guest House at Chotila. The said aspect has been established by the prosecution by examining the Manager of Gaurav Guest House at Chotila. The register maintained by the Guest House Exh 73, all the details with regard to identification of the appellant, mobile number and vehicle upon which, the appellant and the deceased had travelled, are established by the prosecution and therefore presence of the appellant with the deceased at Chotila, has been rightly accepted by the learned Trial Court. He would submit that the distance between Chotila and Muli is only around 40 kms., from where, the deadbody was found in the morning hours i.e. about 6:30 am, which establishing the presence of the appellant at the place of incident where the dead body was found, where both of them have reached in the early morning after travelling from Chotila. 5.3 He would submit that the prosecution has established that the knief was purchased by the appellant from the Chotila by examining two witnesses i.e. owner of the shop and employee, who has sold the knief to the appellant. He would submit that it is a cold blooded murder by the appellant having plan to do it and therefore, the knief was purchased from the shop situated at Chotila, where the appellant had stayed along with the deceased in the Guest House. He would submit that Medical Officer Mr.Ramanbhai has made an extra judicial confession about the manner and method in which the crime has taken place and the same is established by the injury sustained by the deceased referred in PM Note Exh.42. 5.4 He would further submit that it is a well established principle that even panch witnesses have not supported the discovery of any articles but the Investigating Officer has stated about the manner and method in which the articles were discovered, the said evidence can be relied upon by the learned Trial Court. 5.5 In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Mallikarjun Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2019 (8) SCC 359 . By taking us through Para 23 of the said decision, he would submit that in the present case, Investigating Officer has categorically stated about the discovery of panchnama at the instance of the present appellant. State of Karnataka reported in 2019 (8) SCC 359 . By taking us through Para 23 of the said decision, he would submit that in the present case, Investigating Officer has categorically stated about the discovery of panchnama at the instance of the present appellant. He therefore would submit that the prosecution has established entire chain of circumstances against the appellant and therefore, the appeal may be dismissed. 6. Mr.Niraj Soni, learned advocate appearing for the father of the deceased has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and would further submit that the prosecution is able to establish the motive and entire chain of circumstances and therefore, would submit that the appeal be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, perused the record and proceedings, scrutinised oral as well as documentary evidence. As stated hereinabove, the concerned Police Officer of Muli Police Station was informed by one Nirmalsinh Balvantsinh Parmar about the deadbody lying at the distance of 2 kms. from Muli at around 6:30 am. From the bag, I-card of the deceased was found and from the said information, the investigation begun. Parents of the deceased were called at Muli and their statements were recorded. The mother has disclosed about alleged harassment by the appellant, who was a married person. Statements of two roommates namely Priyaben – PW 29 and Shobhanaben - PW 30 were also recorded on the same day. LCB Branch of Surendranagar having some information about alleged involvement of the present appellant, apprehended the appellant from the Ahmedabad from his house. PSI (LCB), Surendranagar, Pareshbhai Iswarbhai Solanki PW-33 has deposed that he having some human information and with the help of CDR of mobile, he apprehended the involvement of present appellant in the crime, arrested the appellant on 03/08/2010. Apart from his human information, the say of the said witness that he has taken help from CDR, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that till his apprehension on 03/08/2010 from Ahmedabad, no mobile was discovered or recovered. Mobile belongs to the appellant was discovered for the first time by drawing panchnama at Exh.23 between 16:30 hours to 17:00 hours on 03/08/2010. Mobile belongs to the appellant was discovered for the first time by drawing panchnama at Exh.23 between 16:30 hours to 17:00 hours on 03/08/2010. The custody of the appellant thereafter was handed over to the concerned Police Officer, who was investigating the case and ultimately, the appellant came to be arrested by preparing another panchnama at Exh.28 on 04/08/2010 at 00:00 hours to 00:30 hours. After his arrest, the appellant was taken to Medical Officer Dr.Kumar Ashish PW-40 at around 10:30 am since the Investigating Officer found some injury on his fingure, before whom, history was given about his own involvement in the crime. It is an admitted position that when the history was recorded by the said Medical Officer in the nature of confession, the appellant was in police custody and therefore, such admission would be hit by section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act and cannot be treated as extra judicial confession before the Medical Officer. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant was taken by the police officer along with Dy.S.P., SCST Cell, Surendranagar. 8. It is also pertinent to note that the statements of two roommates were recorded by the Investigating Officer on 01/08/2010 wherein there was no disclosure by any of them about so called relationship between the appellant and the deceased. However, after a period of 5 days and almost on completion of investigation and discovery and recovery of the articles allegedly used in the crime were made on 06/08/2010, further statements were recorded wherein, details about talks between the appellant and the deceased have been suggested. However, prosecution has miserably failed to produce any material, which suggests that particular number and/or particular mobile was in the name of the deceased or her family members or was used by her and was used to talk with the appellant on his mobile. 9. It is also pertinent to note that as per say of these two roommates, the appellant had visited the deceased on two or three occassions and even before one day prior to incident, however, the prosecution has not cared to arrange any test identification parade of the appellant, to strengthen the case put forward by the Investigating Agency. One of these witnesses, even was not sure about the accused, who was sitting in court room in a particular area meant for the accused to sit when trial goes on. 10. One of these witnesses, even was not sure about the accused, who was sitting in court room in a particular area meant for the accused to sit when trial goes on. 10. It is also pertinent to note that the say of the parents of the deceased with regard to relationship with one Pintubhai @ Rakesh Ransingbhai PW-23, Exh.70, in our opinion, the prosecution has failed to establish the same in view of the fact that the said Pintubhai @ Rakesh has not supported the case of the prosecution. He has denied that he was aware about any relationship between the appellant and the deceased. 11. It is true that the prosecution is able to establish the presence of the appellant at Gaurav Guest House, Chotila in view of the documents supplied by the appellant with regard to his identity at Hotel. It also appears that the register maintained by the Hotel suggests that the appellant was accompanied by a lady, but in our opinion, the prosecution ought to have produced such evidence that the lady, who accompanied the appellant on 31/07/2010 was the deceased only and not any other lady since it is the case of the appellant that he had stayed at Chotila Guest House with his wife. It is established that the present appellant had stayed at Chotila and had come on particular motor cycle but the deadbody was found at the distance of 40 kms. from Chotila. Though motorcycle used by the appellant on 30/07/2010 is discovered and samples collected from the motorcycle was sent for serological report to FSL, no blood stains were found on the same. 12. We have gone through the depositions of the shop owner and employee from which the allegedly knief was purchased by the appellant. Though the employee had identified the appellant in the court room, prosecution ought to have arranged Test Identification Parade to strengthen the case. It also appears from the record that the bill with regard to purchase of the knief was collected by the police and was not discovered at the instance of the appellant. Hence, we are of the opinion that prosecution is unable to establish the entire chain of circumstances, which the trial court has to believe that only and only appellant is a culprit in the crime. 13. Hence, we are of the opinion that prosecution is unable to establish the entire chain of circumstances, which the trial court has to believe that only and only appellant is a culprit in the crime. 13. The prosecution has heavily relied upon the mobile allegedly used in the crime, however, there is complete breach of provisions of section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act and therefore only CDR produced on record, cannot be accepted as proved fact about the ownership of the mobile including one, which was discovered from the house of the appellant on 05/08/2010 referring particular IMI number. CDRs are not even signed by any responsible officer from the company which owns the Sim Card. Even the prosecution has not produced any documents with regard to the ownership of another mobile, which was allegedly traced out from the house of the appellant in his absence, though he was in police custody. Apart from this information, the prosecution has neither examined any witness from the company of the sim card or mobile nor any certificate is produced under section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act and therefore, such evidence is inadmissible. We have also gone through the judgement and the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court. The Trial Court has therefore committed an error in accepting such CDRs as proved fact. In our opinion, prosecution has failed to prove the above referred aspects. The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Harpal Singh (Supra) and Arjun Panditrao (supra) is completely applicable in the present case. 14. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is allowed. In our opinion, prosecution has failed to prove the above referred aspects. The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Harpal Singh (Supra) and Arjun Panditrao (supra) is completely applicable in the present case. 14. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is allowed. The judgement and order dated 04.01.2013 passed by the learned District and Sessions Court (Special Court), Surendranagar in Special Atrocity Case No.53 of 2010 (New Special Atrocity Case No.22 of 2012), by which, the appellant has been convicted an d sentenced for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3(2)(5) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to undergone sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment; under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to undergo sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment and under section 404 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to undergo sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment, is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. R & P be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.