JUDGMENT : MR. DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA, J. The instant D.B. Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant-accused against the judgment dated 30.11.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Abu Road, District Sirohi in Sessions Case No. 65/2016 (12/2015) whereby, the appellant-accused was convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Under Section Sentence Fine Rs. Sentence in default of payment of fine 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.20,000/- 1 Year R.I. 201 IPC 3 Years’ R.I. Rs.10,000/- 6 Months’ R.I. 380 IPC 5 Years’ R.I. Rs.10,000/- 6 Months’ R.I. 2. Briefly put the facts of the case are that on 01.11.2014 at around 12:30 a.m., Om Prakash – PW-1 lodged a written report (Ex.P/1) for the offence committed on 31.10.2014. It was alleged in the report that on 31.10.2014 at around 09:00 p.m., he received an information that his younger brother Rajendra was missing from his house and his motorcycle was parked outside the same residence. The compound gate of house was open. Then, he and his son Nitesh Kumar went to Rajendra’s house at Patel Colony, Santpur and saw that the compound gate (fatak) was open and the main door of the house was locked. Then he looked round from outside and reached corner of the house and saw from the window that fan was switched on and through the flash of torch light he also saw a hand, then he called Jaswant Kumawat from the neighbourhood to break open the lock of the house and after that he entered the house and upon switching on the lights, saw the Rajendra’s body lying on the floor which was smeared in blood and there were multiple wounds on his body. In the adjoining room, he and his son saw that the Almirah was open and all the jewellery boxes were empty. The boxes contained ornaments which his brother had purchased for his own wedding. He also found that three rings, a bracelet and a chain worn by his brother were missing on his body. Thereafter, he informed the police that some unknown person had murdered his brother and had stolen the ornaments from the house. Rajendra last met him in the society meeting on 30.10.2014. On this report, an FIR (No.290/2014) came to be registered for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 380 IPC and investigation was commenced. Thereafter, he informed the police that some unknown person had murdered his brother and had stolen the ornaments from the house. Rajendra last met him in the society meeting on 30.10.2014. On this report, an FIR (No.290/2014) came to be registered for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 380 IPC and investigation was commenced. After concluding the investigation, the IO proceeded to file a charge-sheet against the accused Sunil Kumar for the aforestated offences. 3. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties on charge-framing, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Abu Road read over and explained the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code to the accused Sunil Kumar, who denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 4. In support of its story, in oral evidence, the prosecution has produced PW-1 Om Prakash, PW-2 Kailash Chandra Agarwal, PW-3 Nitesh Agarwal, PW-4 Mahesh Kumar, PW-5 Chantan Sharma, PW- 6 Rahul, PW-7 Sumeet, PW-8 Om Prakash, PW-9 Pradeep Kumar, PW-10 Mohanlal, PW-11 Jaswant Prajapat, PW-12 Aadarsh, PW-13 Madhusudan, PW-14 Pankaj Agarwal, PW-15 Dhanpat Singh, PW- 16 Ummed Singh, PW-17 Gopilal, PW-18 Dimple, PW-19 Leik Ahmed, PW-20 Lalchand, PW-21 Ajay, PW-22 Kaluram, PW-23 Dr. M.L. Hindonia, PW-24 Prakash, PW-25 Padmaram, PW-26 Manish Gupta and PW-27 Sitaram and they have been examined; and in documentary evidence, Written Report Ex.P/1, Site Plan (Naksha Mauka) Ex.P/2, Memo regarding taking blood sample from the place of occurrence Ex.P/3, Memo of collection of chance prints from the mirror of the Almirah which was blood stained Ex.P/4, Memo of recovery of pearl & button from the place of occurrence Ex.P/5, Recovery Memo regarding steel lock Ex.P/6, Panchanama Ex.P/7, Recovery Memo of blood stained jeans, shirt & vest of deceased Ex.P/8, Memo regarding verification of place of occurrence by accused Ex.P/9, Photographs of engagement of Rajendra Ex. P/10 to Ex.P/13, Memo of Arrest of accused Ex.P/12, Memo regarding recovery of clothes worn by accused Sunil Ex.P/13, site plan of place of recovery Ex.P/14, Carbon copy of bill book regarding purchasing of jewellery Ex.P/15-A, bill of pendant & chain Ex.P/16-A, bill of ear chain & tops Ex.P/17-A, Bill of necklace (haar), chudi, rings, maang-tika & nose-ring (nath) Ex. P/10 to Ex.P/13, Memo of Arrest of accused Ex.P/12, Memo regarding recovery of clothes worn by accused Sunil Ex.P/13, site plan of place of recovery Ex.P/14, Carbon copy of bill book regarding purchasing of jewellery Ex.P/15-A, bill of pendant & chain Ex.P/16-A, bill of ear chain & tops Ex.P/17-A, Bill of necklace (haar), chudi, rings, maang-tika & nose-ring (nath) Ex. P/18-A, bill of ear chain Ex.P/19-A, bill of neck set Ex.P/20-A, bill of mangalsutra & pendant Ex.P/21-A, bill of chain & mangalsutra Ex.P/22-A, list of items Ex.P/23-A, Recovery Memo of murder weapon knife Ex.P/24, Memo of recovery of ornaments Ex.P/25, Site Plan of recovery place Ex.P/26, ornaments sealed packet Ex.P/27, Forwarding letter regarding finger print match Ex.P/28, Forwarding letter by SHO for FSL Ex.P/29, receipt of FSL Ex.P/30, receipt of the maal sent for matching finger prints Ex.P/31, entries of maalkhana Ex.P/32, forwarding letter sent by SP Office to FSL Udaipur Ex.P/33, seal affixed on knife Ex.P/34, photographs of place of occurrence Ex.P/34 to Ex.P/48, Photographs of place of occurrence Ex.49 to Ex.P/63, forwarding letter in the name of Finger Bureau by SP Ex.P/64, postmortem report Ex.P/65, proceed report for place of occurrence Ex.P/66, FIR Ex.P/67, injury report of accused Ex.P/68, crime scene examination report Ex.P/69, photographs of place of occurrence annexed with the report Ex. P/70 to Ex.P/78, return report Ex.P/79, copies of call detail Ex.P/80 to Ex.P/91, Information under Section 27 by accused Sunil Ex.P/92, Ex.P/93, Ex.P/94, FSL Report Ex.P/.95, Examination Report of Fingerprint Bureau Ex.P/96, fingerprints of accused Sunil Ex.P/97 to Ex.P/98 were exhibited and articles 1 to 31 were produced before the Court. 5. P/70 to Ex.P/78, return report Ex.P/79, copies of call detail Ex.P/80 to Ex.P/91, Information under Section 27 by accused Sunil Ex.P/92, Ex.P/93, Ex.P/94, FSL Report Ex.P/.95, Examination Report of Fingerprint Bureau Ex.P/96, fingerprints of accused Sunil Ex.P/97 to Ex.P/98 were exhibited and articles 1 to 31 were produced before the Court. 5. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which, he stated that the versions of the witnesses are wrong; and the ornaments, which were recovered by the police from his house, belong to his shop named as “Krishna Jewellers” which was owned jointly by him and his brother; he also stated that he was abused and ill-treated by the police for four days due to which, he sustained injuries and under this pressure, his signatures were taken; that he did not give any information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act; witnesses of complainant have given their statements under the influence of the police; he further stated that he is a innocent person; no recovery of articles and ornaments were made by the police at the instance of the accused; and in defence, he wants to produce evidence but despite the chance given, no evidence was produced by the defence. 6. 6. After hearing the arguments of both the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court found the appellant Sunil guilty for the murder of the deceased Rajendra Kumar, the relevant portion of the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is reproduced here as under:- ^^61- pwafd vfHk;qDr ds fo:} jktsUæ dqekj dh e`R;q dkfjr djus ds vk’k; ls /kkjnkj gfFk;kj pkdw ls geyk dj e`R;q dkfjr djus ,oa tsojkr pqjkus rFkk lk{; dk foyksiu djus dk xaHkhj vijk/k lkfcr gqvk gSA vr% U;k;ky; ds fouez er esa ,sls xaHkhj Ádj.k esa rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, vfHk;qDr ds Áfr ujeh dk :[k viuk;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha ik;k tkrk ,oa dks nks”kfl} vijk/k /kkjk 302] 201 ,oa 380 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk esa fuEukuqlkj n.M ls nf.Mr fd;k tkuk mfpr ik;k tkrk gSA n.Mkns’k %& 62- ifj.kkeLo:i vfHk;qDr lquhy dqekj iq= LoŒ ‘kkafryky tkfr lksuh fuoklh lnj cktkj vkcw jksM ftyk fljksgh dks nks”kfl} vijk/k /kkjk 302] 201 ,oa 380 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds rgr fuEukuqlkj n.M ls nafMr fd;k tkrk gS%& ¼1½ vfHk;qDr lquhy dks nks”kfl} vijk/k /kkjk 302 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds rgr vkthou dkjkokl ls ,oa 20]000@& :i;s ds vFkZn.M ls nafMr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa vfHk;qDr vne vnk;xh vFkZn.M 1 o”kZ dk dBksj dkjkokl i`Fkd ls HkqxrsxkA ¼2½ vfHk;qDr dks nks”kfl} vijk/k /kkjk 201 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds rgr rhu o”kZ ds dBksj dkjkokl ls ,oa 10]000@& :i;s vFkZn.M ls nafMr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa vfHk;qDr vne vnk;xh vFkZn.M 6 ekg dk dBksj dkjkokl i`Fkd ls HkqxrsxkA ¼3½ vfHk;qDr dks nks”kfl} vijk/k /kkjk 380 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk ds rgr ikap o”kZ ds dBksj dkjkokl ls ,oa 10]000@& :i;s vFkZn.M ls nafMr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa vfHk;qDr vne vnk;xh vFkZn.M 6 ekg dk dBksj dkjkokl i`Fkd ls HkqxrsxkA mijksDr rhuksa dkjkokl dh ltk,a lkFk&lkFk pysxh] vfHk;qDr }kjk vUos”k.k@fopkj.k ds nkSjku vfHkj{kk esa O;rhr dh x;h dkjkokl dh vof/k ewy ltk esa lek;ksftr dh tkosxhA Ádj.k esa tCr’kqnk vkfVZdy e`rd o vfHk;qDr ds diMs] cjkenk pkdw] pkal fÁaV ckn xqtjus E;kn vihy@vihy ugha gksus dh lwjr esa u”V fd;s tkosaA ogha vfHk;qDr ls cjkenk QnZ cjkenxh ds vuqlkj tsojkr e`rd ds fdlh fof/kd okfjl }kjk Dyse fd;s tkus ij ckn xqtjus E;kn vihy@vihy ugha gksus dh lwjr esa ykSVk;s tkosaA fu.kZ; dh Áfr vfHk;qDr dks vfoyEc nh tkosaA** 7. As mentioned hereinabove, the present appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the Trial Court on behalf of the appellant/accused Sunil Kumar on various grounds. This appeal was admitted by this Court on 07.01.2019. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accusedappellant and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 9. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant stated that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt as the case of the prosecution is based purely upon circumstantial evidence as there was no eye witness to the incident. The circumstantial evidence is not so complete in all respect to hold the appellant guilty. Learned counsel further stated that there may be strong suspicion for commission of crime by the appellant, but strong suspicion cannot take place of legal, unimpeachable and reliable evidence. Learned counsel also stated that accusedappellant has wrongly been held guilty on the basis of theory of last seen and the conviction of the accused-appellant is based upon the statement of PW-8 – Om Prakash, who is a discredited witness and the same cannot be relied upon. He appears to be a wholly untruthful witness introduced by the prosecution and, therefore, his evidence deserves to be rejected outright. Learned counsel further stated that the prosecution has failed to conduct test identification parade because as per PW-8 – Om Prakash, he did not know the accused before the alleged incident. Regarding medical evidence, learned counsel stated that the concerned Dr. M.L. Hindonia along with other Doctors, namely, Dr. Manish and Dr. Gaurav Mewara, who conducted autopsy stated that while conducting the postmortem upon the dead body, they had prepared notes and thereafter, on the basis of these notes, they prepared the postmortem report but these notes were not handed over to the police and the same were destroyed. Learned counsel also stated that the alleged weapon of murder i.e., dagger (knife), was not shown to the concerned Doctors. Learned counsel further stated that as the prosecution had failed to produce Dr. Manish Gupta and Dr. Gaurav Mewara in the witness box, adverse inference is required to be drawn against the prosecution. Learned counsel also stated that the alleged weapon of murder i.e., dagger (knife), was not shown to the concerned Doctors. Learned counsel further stated that as the prosecution had failed to produce Dr. Manish Gupta and Dr. Gaurav Mewara in the witness box, adverse inference is required to be drawn against the prosecution. As regards, the alleged recovery of ornaments, learned counsel stated that the prosecution had utterly failed to prove the recovery of ornaments at the instance of the accused, therefore, the same has to be discarded. In support of recovery, the prosecution had produced as many as six witnesses and from the statements of these witnesses, the learned counsel pointed out that the prosecution had failed to prove that the ornaments belonged to the deceased because no test identification parade of the jewellery was conducted, no design and/or make was described and whether or not any ornaments were worn by the deceased on the fateful day was also not proved, therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be set aside. As regards to the recovery of dagger (knife), the alleged weapon of murder is concerned, the prosecution had miserably failed to prove that from where the dagger (knife) was allegedly acquired, no evidence in this regard had been produced by the prosecution. The learned counsel stated that the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of clothes allegedly made at instance of the accused from a village called Posaliya, which is 80-90 kms. away from the place of occurrence. As regards to the recovery of buttons and clothes is concerned, learned counsel stated that the prosecution has failed to produce the motbir, namely, Mahesh Kumar S/o Satya Narayan Agarwal, to substantiate the alleged recovery. It was also stated that the prosecution has failed to establish that the buttons are of the very same shirt belonging to the deceased, as no test identification parade was conducted so as to verify this fact. Learned counsel further stated that the recovery of the shirt is also unbelievable because as per prosecution itself, the appellant kept the dagger (knife) at his house and threw the clothes about 110 kms. away from the house or place of occurrence, i.e., Abu Road. Learned counsel further stated that no-one identified the clothes, recovered by the investigating agency, as to whether they belonged to the deceased or the accused. away from the house or place of occurrence, i.e., Abu Road. Learned counsel further stated that no-one identified the clothes, recovered by the investigating agency, as to whether they belonged to the deceased or the accused. The prosecution failed to associate any independent witness/motbirs from the area concerned in the recovery memos. It was also stated that on Ex. P/13, neither the thumb impressions of the motbirs were taken nor any police seal was affixed. Regarding chance prints and finger prints, learned counsel stated that the motbir Mahesh Kumar PW- 4 has not stated anything in the Court about lifting of the prints and the other motbir Kailash Chandra PW-2 also showed ignorance about taking of finger prints from the lock. Yet another motbir PW- 20 Lal Chand, a police constable, stated that although the chance prints were taken from the place of occurrence but the same were not sealed. Another witness PW-27 Sita Ram, SHO, had stated that he did not take the finger prints from the alleged weapon of offence, i.e., the dagger (knife). Learned counsel stated that taking into consideration all the material available on record, it is clear that the prosecution has hopelessly failed to lead satisfactory evidence regarding collection of specimen finger prints of the appellant so as to tally them with the chance prints taken from the crime scene during investigation. Without undertaking this exercise, it cannot be said that the chance finger prints were of the appellant. Regarding the call details procured during investigation, learned counsel stated that in support of the call detail report, neither the requisite certificate as required under Section 65B of the Evidence Act has been obtained nor the concerned witness of the service provider has been produced before the Court, therefore, in these circumstances, the call detail records collected during investigation cannot be used against the appellant. Learned counsel stated that the prosecution has failed to establish the link evidence regarding safe keeping of the samples/articles as the material witness namely, Lala Ram, Constable posted at SP Office Crime Branch, Udaipur has not been produced before the Court to prove the link evidence. Learned counsel also questioned the genuineness of the seals marked on the malkhana articles because, the prosecution has failed to prove that they were handed over to the independent witnesses or remained with the IO. Learned counsel also questioned the genuineness of the seals marked on the malkhana articles because, the prosecution has failed to prove that they were handed over to the independent witnesses or remained with the IO. The sanctity of seals appended on the articles has not been proved. Lastly, learned counsel for the accused-appellant stated that the appellant cannot be convicted and sentenced on the material available on record because, the prosecution has totally failed to establish/prove the motive of the crime, which is the very basis of the criminal jurisprudence. Learned counsel thus, prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed and the appellant may kindly be acquitted from the charges as levelled against him. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to and relied upon the following judgments:- (1) Digamber Vaishnav & Anr. Vs. State of Chhattishgarh, reported in 2019 Criminal Law Journal 1901; (2) Nagaraja Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 2020 (1) CJ (Cri.) (SC) 345; (3) Raju & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2016 (1) R.Cr.D. 509 (Raj.); (4) Ashish Jain Vs. Makrand Singh, reported in 2019 Criminal Law Journal 1316; (5) Bherulal Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2019 (2) C.J. (Cri.) (Raj.) 807; (6) Ramesh Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2020 (1) WLC (Raj.) 696. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor has fully supported the impugned judgment and the order passed by the learned Trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. He has stated that motbir witness of recovery of buttons and pearls Mahesh Kumar S/o Satya Narayan Agarwal died during the trial, therefore, he could not be produced in evidence. It is also wrong that police seal was not affixed on Ex. P/13; that seal was marked as ‘X’ and signatures are also there between portion ‘A’ to ‘B’ and ‘C’ to ‘D’. Learned Public Prosecutor stated that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and prayed that no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and order. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have scanned through the entire record and have perused the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. 12. PW-1 Om Prakash, i.e., the brother of the deceased Rajendra and is also the informant. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have scanned through the entire record and have perused the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. 12. PW-1 Om Prakash, i.e., the brother of the deceased Rajendra and is also the informant. He stated in examination-in-chief that he has two brothers and two sisters. His two brothers are Hanuman Prasad and Rajendra Kumar (deceased). Rajendra had sold a portion of his property and had purchased a house in Patel Colony and was residing therein. He further stated that Rajendra had purchased approximately 30 tola gold and 2 kg. to 2.5 kg. silver for his marriage, which was scheduled to be solemnized on 13.11.2014. On 31.10.2014 at 9:00 p.m., he was at his home when his neighbour Pintu told him that the mobile number of his brother Rajendra was switched off; information to this effect was given by Om Prakashji to Pintu’s father Mahesh, who saw Rajendra’s motorcycle parked outside the house and also saw that the compound gate of the house was open. On that information, he went there along with his son Nitesh Kumar; they saw that the compound gate of Rajendra’s house was open and the main door was locked; they went on the roof of the house through the external staircase but could not see anything; window of back side was open and with the aid of mobile’s torch, they saw that the fan was switched on; thereafter, they came in front of the house and started looking beneath the door then, a hand was seen; thereafter, they called the neighbour Jaswant with cutter machine to break open the lock and they entered the house and switched on the lights, they found that the deceased’s body was smeared with blood and there were multiple wounds on his body; in the adjoining room, the Almirah was open and key was present in the key-hole of the lock; they found empty jewellery boxes; blood stains were present on the Almirah, floors etc. 13. When it was asked by Public Prosecutor that what was available on the body of Rajendra, objection was raised by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant but after hearing both the sides, that objection was over-ruled. 13. When it was asked by Public Prosecutor that what was available on the body of Rajendra, objection was raised by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant but after hearing both the sides, that objection was over-ruled. Thereafter, PW-1 stated that one gold chain with the name of R.K. Agarwal engraved on it, three gold rings and gold bracelet usually worn by Rajendra were missing when the dead body was seen; thereafter, by telephone, they called the Police; soon after the police came there, three blood stained buttons and 12 blood stained pearls were found on the bed; he submitted a written report to the police which is Ex. P/1. On that written report, his signature is present between ‘A’ to B’ portion. He further stated that the police prepared site plan, Ex. P/2; memo of site plan is Ex. P/3; his signatures on these memos are present between ‘A’ to ‘B’ portion. Pieces of blood stained mirror from the Almirah were also seized by the police ; recovery memo of pieces of mirror is Ex. P/4; recovery memo of buttons and pearls is Ex. P/5; recovery memo of lock is Ex. P/6; Panchanama of dead body is Ex. P/7; recovery of clothes worn by Rajendra, i.e., jeans-shirt, vest and pant is Ex. P/8; on all these memos, his signatures are present between ‘A’ to ‘B’ portion. In this way, he supported the story of the prosecution and the procedure of investigation, but during cross-examination, he admitted that the name R.K. Agarwal was not mentioned on the golden chain. He also admitted the details of the ornaments stolen by the assailant were not mentioned in the written report (Ex.P/1). It was also admitted that the quantity of gold and silver articles stolen by the murderer has not been mentioned in his police statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D/1). He also admitted that during the course of investigation between 01.11.2014 to 05.11.2014, interrogation was made from numerous people of Abu Road. He also admitted that it was not mentioned in the written report (Ex.P/1) that the accused Sunil and the deceased Rajendra used to sit together for the purpose of consumption of liquor. He also admitted that the memos. were not sealed in any envelope and the same were not handed over to any responsible person. 14. He also admitted that it was not mentioned in the written report (Ex.P/1) that the accused Sunil and the deceased Rajendra used to sit together for the purpose of consumption of liquor. He also admitted that the memos. were not sealed in any envelope and the same were not handed over to any responsible person. 14. Kailash Chandra, PW-2 was associated as a witness to memos (i.e.,Ex.P/2 to Ex.P/8) prepared by the Police during investigation. Although, while supporting the story of the prosecution, he stated during the examination-in-chief, that on Ex.P/2 i.e., site plan, Ex.P/3, piece of blood stained mirror, Ex.P/5, memo. in regard to buttons and pearls, Ex.P/6 recovery memo, Ex.P/7 panchnama of dead body and Ex.P/8 recovery memo. of clothes of deceased, on portion marked ‘C’ to ‘D’, he put his signatures but, during the course of cross-examination, he admitted that he did not know whether finger prints were taken from the lock recovered from the place of occurrence (vide Ex.P/6). He further admitted that it was not mentioned that finger prints were taken from the lock. He also admitted that he saw the place of occurrence for the first time, as he resided 3 to 4 kms. away from the place of occurrence and there were approximately 100 to 200 houses in Patel Colony. In this sequence, he stated on his own that the Police took him to the place of occurrence. He also admitted that after seal was affixed on Ex.P/3 to Ex.P/7, the same were not sealed and were not handed over to any responsible person. 15. PW-3 Nitesh Agarwal was the nephew of the deceased Rajendra and was associated a witness to Ex.P/5, recovery memo. of buttons and pearls. During examination-in-chief, he fully supported the story of the prosecution. He stated that on 31.10.2014, his father called him at 09:00 p.m. whereafter, he and his father went to the house of his uncle Rajendra; on arrival at the place, they saw that Rajendra’s motorcycle was parked outside the house; mobile phone of Rajendra was switched off; then, in light of the torch, they saw a hand. He stated that on 31.10.2014, his father called him at 09:00 p.m. whereafter, he and his father went to the house of his uncle Rajendra; on arrival at the place, they saw that Rajendra’s motorcycle was parked outside the house; mobile phone of Rajendra was switched off; then, in light of the torch, they saw a hand. He also stated that on 09.11.2014, he went to the place of occurrence along with accused Sunil and the investigating officer and in his presence, the accused Sunil identified the bed on which, he had stabbed his uncle (deceased Rajendra) and site plan of that place is Ex.P/9, on portion marked ‘A’ to ‘B’, he had put his signatures. Ex.P/10 to Ex.P/12 were the photographs of engagement of the deceased Rajendra. He also stated that in his presence, these photographs were captured. During cross-examination, he admitted that in Ex.P/1, i.e., written report, it was not mentioned that locket having name of R.K. Agarwal was taken away by the murderer; he visited the place of occurrence between 31.10.2014 to 01.11.2014; his other uncle, namely, Hanuman Prasad was also present in Abu Road on that date and he was also present at the place of occurrence on 09.11.2014. It was informed to his uncle Hanuman Prasad that all the ornaments were stolen by the assailant, who murdered Rajendra. He also admitted that in his police statement, Ex.D2, it was not mentioned that the locket having name of R.K. Agarwal was stolen by the murderer. 16. PW-4 Mahesh Kumar is a formal witness and he stated during his examination-in-chief that approximately before one year, he received a phone call from Omji, resident of Swaroopganj. He asked him to report his neighbour Om Prakash, residing in front of his house, that the door of his brother Rajendra’s house was open and motorcycle was parked outside the house and his phone was switched off. Thereafter, he informed Om Prakash and after receiving the information, Om Prakash and his son arrived there. During cross-examination, he admitted that Omji Agarwal, resident of Swaroopganj was his relative. 17. PW-5 Chantan Sharma, PW-6 Rahul and PW-9 Pradeep Kumar, all were the witnesses of Ex.P/7, Panchanama of dead body. Thereafter, he informed Om Prakash and after receiving the information, Om Prakash and his son arrived there. During cross-examination, he admitted that Omji Agarwal, resident of Swaroopganj was his relative. 17. PW-5 Chantan Sharma, PW-6 Rahul and PW-9 Pradeep Kumar, all were the witnesses of Ex.P/7, Panchanama of dead body. PW-5 Chantan Sharma stated that the police had prepared the memo of dead body of Rajendra in his presence and the same was Ex.P/7 and on that memo, he had put his signatures on the portion marked as ‘E’ to ‘F’. While supporting that evidence, PW-6 Rahul stated that on the portion marked ‘G’ to ‘H’, he had put his signatures. There is nothing in the cross-examination of these two witnesses which could question their credibility. Similarly, while supporting the statements of both the witnesses, PW-9 Pradeep Kumar stated that he had put his signatures on the portion marked as ‘I’ to ‘J’ on the memo of dead body of Rajendra. 18. PW-7 Sumit is a neighbour of deceased Rajendra Kumar. He had stated that on 31.10.2014, when he made a call to Rajendra, his mobile was switched off, and thus he called Omji (brother of the deceased Rajendra) who replied that Rajendra was not with him; thereafter, Omji and his son came there and enquired from him and other neighbours. 19. PW-8 Om Prakash is also one of the neighbourers of deceased Rajendra Kumar. He had stated that Rajendra was known to him; he was a mediator in the engagement of Rajendra with Sheetal. He stated that around 30.10.2014, he received a phone call from Pintu, who informed him that Rajendra’s house was open and his motorcycle was parked outside the same. He asked him the phone number of Om Prakash, i.e., brother of Rajendra. Since, he did not have the phone number of Om Prakash, he gave the phone number of his neighbour-Mahesh; after that, he gave a call to Om Prakash; then, he stated that when he was coming from Beawar, Pintu telephonically informed him that Rajendra had been murdered by someone. He further stated that one day before the incident, he had gone to Rajendra’s house; where another boy was also present from before; he did not know that person by name but stated in the Court that he could recognize the present accused as the one, who was present at the Rajendra’s house. He further stated that one day before the incident, he had gone to Rajendra’s house; where another boy was also present from before; he did not know that person by name but stated in the Court that he could recognize the present accused as the one, who was present at the Rajendra’s house. Rajendra offered him a glass of liquor but the same was refused by him; thereafter Rajendra demanded money and so he had given him Rs. 200/-. But during cross( examination, he stated that he was there only for two minutes and talked to Rajendra outside his house; person, who was present along with Rajendra was not known to him. He could not say about features and whereabouts of the accused. He had stated that Police called him and recorded his statements on the day after the incident. Police asked him if he could identify the person, who was present with the deceased Rajendra that night, to which, he agreed to identify that person if brought before him. In answer to a particular question, he had stated that he did not inform the Police about the features of that person and he did not tell them that, if that person was produced before him, he could identify him. He further admitted that no test identification parade was conducted by the Police before the Magistrate. He further stated that he was called at 02:00 a.m. and on the next day at 04:00 p.m. he was set free by the Police. He admitted that he was under the scanner. He further stated that 10 to 15 other boys were also called by the Abu Road Police and they were interrogated because they were also under suspicion. 20. PW-10 Mohanlal and PW-16 Ummed Singh stated that on 05.11.2014, they were posted as Constables at Police Station Abu Road City; accused Sunil was arrested in their presence and arrest memo is Ex.P/12; on the portion marked as ‘A’ to ‘B’, they had put their signatures. They further stated that on 06.11.2014 at 05:30 a.m., they along with SHO Sitaram and Gopilal proceeded for Posaliya along with accused Sunil Kumar and reached the Service Lane, near Posaliya Bridge at around 07:00 a.m. and at that time, accused Sunil indicated towards a ditch and bushes, where he had thrown the blood stained clothes concealed in a bag. They further stated that on 06.11.2014 at 05:30 a.m., they along with SHO Sitaram and Gopilal proceeded for Posaliya along with accused Sunil Kumar and reached the Service Lane, near Posaliya Bridge at around 07:00 a.m. and at that time, accused Sunil indicated towards a ditch and bushes, where he had thrown the blood stained clothes concealed in a bag. They further stated that the bag was brought out by accused Sunil from these bushes. In that bag, there was one blood stained checks-shirt; on the collar of that shirt, sticker of “BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB” was affixed, two buttons on upper side and two buttons on lower side of the belt were available but three buttons were missing. One blue coloured blood stained jeans having brand of “GAS” and white vest of “LUX VENUS” having size of 85 cm and one full sleeves white shirt and blood stained khaki (dark yellowish – green cloth) jeans pant were also found in that bag which were of the appellant, who was wearing these clothes at the time of incident. Recovery memo of clothes was prepared as Ex.P/13 and map of recovery was Ex. P/14 and on both these memos, on the portion marked as ‘A’ to ‘B’, they had put their signatures but during cross-examination, both the witnesses had stated that no independent witnesses were taken from Abu Road and they could not say that the efforts were made or not. This could be answered only by the Investigating Officer. They also stated that no memo was prepared in the presence of any independent witnesses by the Investigating Officer. They further stated that they proceeded in a Scorpio, a private vehicle and the driver of that vehicle was not made one of the witnesses of that memos. PW-10 Mohanlal admitted that the place of recovery was 110 kms. away from Abu Road and the recovered articles were not available in the Court. He could not say that in presence of which independent witness, information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was given by Sunil to the Investigating Officer. 21. PW-11 Jaswant Prajapat, was a neighbour of the deceased Rajendra. away from Abu Road and the recovered articles were not available in the Court. He could not say that in presence of which independent witness, information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was given by Sunil to the Investigating Officer. 21. PW-11 Jaswant Prajapat, was a neighbour of the deceased Rajendra. He had stated that on 31.10.2014, he was at his home; at about 09:30 p.m., Om Prakash (PW-1), i.e., the complainant called him and asked the whereabouts of Rajendra then, he replied that he saw him, sweeping the floor outside his house in the morning. Thereafter, he stated that a crowd had collected in front of the house of deceased Rajendra; since, the lock was not opened, Omji asked him to bring cutter machine & with the help thereof, he broke the lock and opened the main door; thereafter, Nitesh and Omji entered the house and from outside the house, he saw the dead body of Raju (Rajendra) smeared with blood and in the adjoining room, Almirah was open; thereafter Police came there. No question was put to this witness in the crossexamination. 22. PW-12 Aadarsh is a formal witness of arrest memo. He stated that on 05.11.2014, he was posted at Police station Abu Road City as a Constable; in his presence, Sunil Kumar was arrested at Police Station Abu Road; his arrest memo was Ex. P/12 and his signatures on that memo were present on the portion marked as ‘C’ to ‘D’. In answer to a question during crossexamination, he had stated that Sunil was brought by SHO to the Police Station. 23. PW-13 Madhusudan is the jewellery shop owner. He had stated that he ran a shop in the name & style of “Shivhari Madhusudan Jewellers” which was situated at Aazad Maidan, Nagar Seth Gali, Abu Road. He was doing the business of gold and silver at that shop. He further stated that Rajendra S/o Prahladji Agarwal was known to him and he frequently visited his shop; approximately two to three years ago, Rajendra purchased some jewellery/gold articles from his shop; he did not remember the dates of purchase but purchase had been made in the year 2014; to attest to this fact he had given copy of cash memo to the police. He further stated that on 28.06.2014, one bracelet and one ring was purchased on that date and Bill No.548 was the bill of that jewellery and carbon copy of that bill was Ex. P/15 and photocopy of that bill was Ex. P/15-A. He further stated that on 10.08.2014, through Bill No. 558, a chain and a pendant were purchased by Rajendra; bill of that sale was Ex. P/16; photocopy of that bill was Ex. P/16A. Thereafter, on 11.08.2014, through Bill No. 559, ear rings and chain attached to the ear rings were purchased; copy of that bill was Ex. P/17 and photocopy of that bill was Ex. P/17-A. On 16.08.2014, through Bill No. 560, Rajendra further purchased necklace (haar), bangles, ring, maang-tika and nath (nose-ring); bill of that purchase was Ex. P/18; copy of that bill was Ex. P/18-A. On 21.08.2014, through Bill No. 563, ear-chain was purchased and bill of that sale was Ex. P/19 and copy of that bill was Ex.P/19-A. On 27.08.2014, through Bill No. 568, one set of four pieces for neck was purchased; bill of that sale was Ex. P/20 and copy of that bill was Ex. P/20-A. On 07.09.2014, Rajendra purchased mangal-sutra and pendant; bill of that sale was Ex. P/21 and photocopy of that bill was Ex. P/21- A. Thereafter, on 19.10.2014, through Bill No. 606, Rajendra again purchased one chain and mangal-sutra; copy of that sale was Ex. P/22 and photocopy of that bill was Ex. P/22-A. He further stated that upon all the above bills, i.e. Ex. P/15 to P/22, his signatures were present between ‘A’ to ‘B’ portion and photocopies of these bills are Ex. P/15-A to P/22-A and ‘A’ to ‘B’ were his signatures. He further stated that list of these ornaments were prepared and handed over by him to the SHO on 07.11.2014 which was Ex. P/23 and ‘A’ to ‘B’ were his signatures on that list. He further stated that he could identify the above ornaments which were purchased from his shop by deceased Rajendra Kumar. On that statement, the packet of seized ornaments was opened before the learned Trial Court and four bangles, mangal-sutra, pendant, two rings, one ladies ring, chain pendant having words “R.K. Agarwal” engraved on it, one necklace (haar), maang-tika, ear-chain, nosering (nath), bracelet and one chain were found in it. On that statement, the packet of seized ornaments was opened before the learned Trial Court and four bangles, mangal-sutra, pendant, two rings, one ladies ring, chain pendant having words “R.K. Agarwal” engraved on it, one necklace (haar), maang-tika, ear-chain, nosering (nath), bracelet and one chain were found in it. All the ornaments were made of gold and purchased by Rajendra from his shop. In this way, he had supported the prosecution story and identified the recovered ornaments and categorically stated that all these ornaments were purchased by the deceased Rajendra Kumar from his shop through bills, Ex. P/15 to P/22. During crossexamination, he had stated that there were 50 to 60 jewellery shops at Abu Road; his younger brother Rajendra was also doing the business of gold jewellery since seven years; he could not say that which type of jewellery was sold by his brother. 24. It is pertinent to mention here that during crossexamination, in answer to a pertinent question, Madhusudan (PW- 13) had stated that name of the father of Rajendra Kumar had not been mentioned on Ex. P/15; he also stated that the design of ornaments had also not been mentioned in any of the bills i.e., Ex.P/15, Ex.P/16, Ex.P/17, Ex.P/19, Ex.P/20, Ex.P/21 and Ex.P/22. But, in our opinion, as explained by this witness, there was no practice of mentioning the design of ornaments on the bills of purchase. He admitted that neither the signatures of the purchaser nor the name of the purchaser’s father were present on some of the bills but, in our opinion, no adverse inference can be drawn on that basis. In reply to one of the questions, the witness stated that he could not say whether a jewellery shop is owned by the accused in the name of “Krishna Jewellers” situated at Sadar Bazar, Abu Road. He further admitted that test identification of the jewellery articles recovered by the Police was not conducted through the Police in presence of Magistrate. 25. PW-14 Pankaj Agarwal was the Panch witness of recovery memo Ex. P/24. He further admitted that test identification of the jewellery articles recovered by the Police was not conducted through the Police in presence of Magistrate. 25. PW-14 Pankaj Agarwal was the Panch witness of recovery memo Ex. P/24. During examination-in-chief, he has stated that on 07.11.2014, Police along with the accused Sunil Soni came in front of Sadar Bazar, Karim Babsh ; at that time, he was present and accompanied them; from the house of the accused Sunil, one sharp edged dagger (knife) from one iron box wrapped in clothes was recovered; blood stains were present on that dagger (knife) having wooden handle which was covered by black tape and front portion of that dagger (knife) was bent and was wrapped with yellow thread; after measurement, that weapon was seized by the Police on the spot vide memo Ex. P/24 and ‘A’ to ‘B’ were his signatures. The witness (PW-14) further stated that on the date from the same place, Sunil produced some of the ornaments having yellowish colour, i.e., mangal-sutra, ear-ring, nose-ring (nath), chain, two gents and one ladies ring, bracelet, thick golden chain having some mark, one golden chain and three to four bangles from bag of cement lying in a polythene; recovery memo. of these ornaments was Ex. P/25 and site plan of that recovery place was Ex. P/26. A note to this effect was available in the statement of this witness that the bag of seized articles which was opened during the statement of Madhusudan (PW-13) was presented before this witness. Thereafter, it was stated by this witness that the ornaments were placed in empty plastic bag of “Ghadi Detergent” and while identifying these recovered ornaments, he had further stated that out of three pieces of silver, there was one whole silver biscuit and a total of 18 articles, which were identified by him. He had stated that all the articles were recovered and sealed by the Police in his presence and that sealed packet was Ex. P/27; carbon copy of that memo was Ex. P/27-A; ‘A’ to ‘B’ were his signatures on above memo. He further stated that the dagger (knife) was also recovered in his presence which was article 29 and was Ex. P/34; ‘A’ to ‘B’ were his signatures on that packet. P/27; carbon copy of that memo was Ex. P/27-A; ‘A’ to ‘B’ were his signatures on above memo. He further stated that the dagger (knife) was also recovered in his presence which was article 29 and was Ex. P/34; ‘A’ to ‘B’ were his signatures on that packet. In this way, he had supported the story of the prosecution in regard to recovery of ornaments as well as dagger (knife) from the house of accused at his instance. During crossexamination, Pankaj Agarwal (PW-14) had admitted that elder brother of Sunil, namely, Pankaj and wives of Sunil and Pankaj were residing jointly in that house. He further admitted that finger prints from article 19 were not taken in his presence. He could not say that on that specific date, how many chits were signed by him; the seal used for packing of articles was not covered in any envelope and the same was not handed over to any responsible officer, as the same was taken away by CI Sahib. He further stated that there was no specific mark on the seized articles numbered as 1 to 18. But he further stated Rajendra, R.K. etc. was mentioned upon one or two articles. 26. PW-15 Dhanpat Singh stated that he was posted as Incharge of Maalkhana at Police Station Abu Road City on 01.11.2014; sealed packets were marked as ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’; one packet marked as A/1 for the CR No. 290/2014 having mobile phone of accused which was found during personal search of accused dated 05.11.2014 and sealed packet marked as ‘E’ of blood stained clothes of accused, sealed packet of weapon, i.e., dagger (knife) marked as ‘F’, seized ornaments of gold and silver were handed over to him by the Investigating Officer in sealed conditions; endorsement to this effect was made by him in Maalkhana register. He further stated that articles ‘B’, ‘D’, ‘E’ and ‘F’ were handed over to Gopi Lal, Constable Belt No. 365 by him on 24.11.2014 for examination of those articles by FSL, Udaipur through SP, Udaipur; after obtaining the articles, the forwarding letter was prepared at the SP Office. These articles were deposited in FSL, Udaipur and Receipt No. 252 dated 25.11.2014 was handed over by Gopi Lal, endorsement of this effect was also made in Maalkhana register. These articles were deposited in FSL, Udaipur and Receipt No. 252 dated 25.11.2014 was handed over by Gopi Lal, endorsement of this effect was also made in Maalkhana register. He further stated that on 24.11.2014, one packet marked as ‘A/1’ having chance prints was handed over to Kalu Ram, Constable Belt No. 573 in sealed condition and the same was deposited by him on 25.11.2014 at FSL, Jaipur; Receipt No. 630 dated 25.11.2014 was handed over to him including sealed packet which was deposited by him in Maalkhana and receipt was handed over to Investigating Officer. He further stated that for comparison of finger prints, forwarding letter was prepared from the SP Office, Sirohi which was Ex. P/28; forwarding letter of Police Station for depositing of articles in FSL, Udaipur was Ex. P/29; receipt of FSL, Udaipur was Ex. P/30 and receipt of Jaipur in regard to receipt of finger prints was Ex. P/31; relevant entry in this regard was made at Sl. No. 396/2014 in the Maalkhana register; entry in regard to the deposition of Maalkhana was Ex. P/32 and copy of the same was Ex. P/32-A; ‘A’ to ‘B’ were his signatures as Incharge of Police Station for verification. In this way, he had supported the story of the prosecution in regard to deposition of seized articles in Maalkhana etc. During cross-examination, he had admitted that articles were deposited on 06.11.2014 and 07.11.2014 and he could not explain why there was delay in sending these seized articles on 24.11.2014 and for that, explanation could be given by the concerned Investigating Officer. 27. PW-17 Gopi Lal, Constable Belt No. 365 stated that on 24.11.2014, he was posted at Police Station, Abu Road City as Constable and the seized articles marked as ‘B’, ‘D’, ‘E’ and ‘F’ were handed over to him by the Incharge, Maalkhana Mr. Dhanpat Singh, Belt No. 505 with forwarding letter (Ex. P/29) and other essential documents and the same were deposited by him on 25.11.2014 at FSL, Udaipur in sealed condition; forwarding letter was prepared at the SP Office as Ex. P/33 and receipt of those articles was Ex. P/30 which was handed over by him at the Police Station; goods were intact during his possession. During cross-examination, in reply of only question, he had stated that the seal which was used at the time of seizure was not handed over to him. 28. P/33 and receipt of those articles was Ex. P/30 which was handed over by him at the Police Station; goods were intact during his possession. During cross-examination, in reply of only question, he had stated that the seal which was used at the time of seizure was not handed over to him. 28. PW-18 Dimple, posted as Lady Constable at Police Station, Abu Road, City stated that in the year 2014, she was discharging the duties of Computer Operator; call detail reports in regard to Mobile Nos. 8875698730, 9887949423 and 9950394951 were obtained by her through e-mail and the same were handed over to Incharge of Police Station. She further stated that she was the only Operator of Computer and, no other person was discharging that duty. The computer remained in her control and possession; call detail report running into 12 pages was handed over by her to the Incharge of Police Station. During cross-examination, she has admitted that no certificate was given by her and there is no certificate which shows that the call detail reports were obtained through the computer of Police Station, but she has stated that e-mail ID of Police Station and SP Sirohi were mentioned upon the call detail reports. She did not state that any certificate required under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act has been obtained or procured by her from service provider in regard to call detail reports. It is also pertinent to mention here that statement of this witness was also not supported by any other witness of the prosecution including the Investigating Officer. 29. PW-19 Leik Ahmed was the Photographer. He stated that he has done photography at the place of occurrence on 31.10.2014; he was called by Police Official of Police Station, Abu Road at Patel Colony, Santpur; photographs Ex. P/34 to P/48 were snapped by him at the instance of Incharge of Police Station. He was a formal witness with regard to photography. During cross-examination, he admitted that the Memory Card was not handed over by him. 30. PW-20 Lal Chand stated that on 01.11.2014, he was posted as Constable in Crime Branch of MoB Team; on that date, house of the deceased Rajendra Kumar S/o Prahlad Ram, i.e., the place of incident, was inspected by him in presence of motbirs Mahesh Kumar and Kailash Chandra. 30. PW-20 Lal Chand stated that on 01.11.2014, he was posted as Constable in Crime Branch of MoB Team; on that date, house of the deceased Rajendra Kumar S/o Prahlad Ram, i.e., the place of incident, was inspected by him in presence of motbirs Mahesh Kumar and Kailash Chandra. He further stated that chance prints were taken by him from mirror of Almirah and pieces of that mirror were also sealed in his presence and marked as A/1. Chance prints were also obtained from the upper side of blood stained Almirah and memo Ex. P/4 was prepared in this regard; ‘A’ to ‘B’, ‘C’ to ‘D’ and ‘E’ to ‘F’ were the signatures of complainant and witnesses (two motbirs); ‘G’ to ‘H’ were his signatures; photographs of the place of occurrence were Ex. P/49 to P/63; details of case are mentioned between ‘A’ to ‘B’ portion and his signatures were on ‘C’ to ‘D’ portion. There is nothing in his crossexamination which can create any doubt upon the credibility of this witness. 31. PW-21 Ajay Agarwal is also one of the witnesses of recovery memos Ex. P/24, P/25 and P/26. While supporting the statement of PW-14 Pankaj Agarwal, attesting witness of the same memos and while repeating the narration as given by PW-14 Pankaj Agarwal, he stated that the ornaments were recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant from his house. 32. PW-22 Kalu Ram stated that on 24.11.2014, he was posted as Constable at Police Station, Abu Road City. While supporting the statement of PW-15 Dhanpat Singh, he has stated that one seized bag marked as A/1 including essential documents for comparison by Finger Print Bureau, Jaipur was handed over to him; he, thereafter, headed to the SP Office for issuing a forwarding letter ( Ex.P/64); the marked bag was handed over by him to the Finger Print Bureau and after photography and essential proceedings, that bag was returned to him including the receipt (Ex. P/31), forwarding letter prepared at the SP Office is Ex. P/28. After taking photographs of chance prints marked as ‘A’ to ‘I’, he handed over the same to Dhanpat Singh, Incharge of Maalkhana. He also stated that the seized articles remained intact till they were in his possession but during cross-examination, he has admitted that he had carried the articles on 24.11.2014, while the case was registered 15-20 days earlier. P/28. After taking photographs of chance prints marked as ‘A’ to ‘I’, he handed over the same to Dhanpat Singh, Incharge of Maalkhana. He also stated that the seized articles remained intact till they were in his possession but during cross-examination, he has admitted that he had carried the articles on 24.11.2014, while the case was registered 15-20 days earlier. He further admitted that chit was present on that samples’ bag but there was no seal on it. 33. PW-23 Dr. M.L. Hindonia was one of the member of the Medical Board who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased Rajendra Kumar. He stated that on 01.11.2014, he was posted as Senior Medical Officer, Incharge at CHC Abu Road and on the same date, at the instance of Police Station, Abu Road City, postmortem of the deceased Rajendra Kumar S/o Prahlad Ram, aged 42 years, by caste Agarwal, resident of Patel Colony, Abu Road was conducted. The Medical Board comprised of him along with Dr. Manish Gupta and Dr. Gaurav Mewara. During autopsy, multiple stab wounds were found on different parts of the body. In the opinion of the Medical Board, cause of death was hemorrhagic shock, resulted due to stab wounds on various parts of the body of the deceased, as has been mentioned in postmortem report (Ex. P/65). The above mentioned wounds were found on the neck, chest, stomach, left arm, right shoulder, right leg, back portion of the head etc. which has been mentioned in Ex.P/65 from ‘A’ to ‘B’. The report also contained the opinion pertaining to the cause of death by the Medical Board from ‘C’ to ‘D’, his signatures were present between ‘C’ to ‘D’ portion, while signatures of Dr. Manish Gupta and Dr. Gaurav Mewara were present from ‘G’ to ‘H’ & ‘I’ to ‘J’ respectively; all the injuries were ante mortem; death of the deceased had taken place within 24 to 36 hours of the postmortem. During his cross-examination, he stated that he cannot say whether the injuries could be caused by different weapons. He further stated that rigor mortis was missing, rigor mortis generally starts after two to three hours of the death which could continue in the body for upto 24 hours; temperature of body was not noted by us by any method. During his cross-examination, he stated that he cannot say whether the injuries could be caused by different weapons. He further stated that rigor mortis was missing, rigor mortis generally starts after two to three hours of the death which could continue in the body for upto 24 hours; temperature of body was not noted by us by any method. The Medical Board had prepared postmortem report (Ex.P/65) on the basis of the notes taken down during autopsy but the same were not given to Police because they were destroyed by them. 34. PW-26 Dr. Manish Gupta stated that on 01.11.2014, he was posted as Medical Officer at CHC, Abu Road. He was one of the members of the Medical Board constituted to undertake autopsy on Rajendra’s dead body. While supporting the statement of PW- 23 Dr. H.L. Hindonia, he described the injuries found on the body of deceased Rajendra Kumar. He stated that :- • Injury No. 1 is on the neck measuring 9 x 0.5 x 1.5 cm incised wound, • Injury No. 2 on the chest (right side) measuring 3 x 1 x 7 cm incised wound, • Injury No. 3 on the right underarm measuring 2.3 x 1 x 6 cm stab wound, • Injury No. 4 on the chest (left side) 3 stab wounds measuring 3 x 1 x 6 cm, • Injury No. 5 on the stomach (on the left side) 6 stab wounds measuring 3 x 1 x 6 cm, • Injury No. 6 on the right arm, 3 stab wounds 3 x 1 x 3 cm, • Injury No. 7 on the right knee measuring 2.5 x 0.9 x 0.25 cm stab wounds, • Injury No. 8 on the back, 7 stab wounds measuring 3 x 1 x 5 cm, • Injury No.9 in between the hips stab wounds measuring 4 x 2 x 5 cm and • Injury No. 10 on the private parts (right side) stab wound measuring 3 x 1 x 6 cm. According to him, all these injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon; body of the deceased was identified by his brother; diagram of injuries is present between “X’ to ‘Y’ portion in Ex. P/65. Dr. According to him, all these injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon; body of the deceased was identified by his brother; diagram of injuries is present between “X’ to ‘Y’ portion in Ex. P/65. Dr. Gupta further stated that on 05.11.2014, he examined accused Sunil Kumar and prepared an injury report No. 6058; many injuries were found on the body of the injured Sunil Kumar; • Injury No.1 is the abrasion measuring 4 x 0.5 cm on the left clerical portion, simple and blunt in nature; • Injury No.2 is laceration measuring 0.5cm x 0.5cm on right hand’s little finger, seems to be caused by sharp edged weapon but simple in nature; • Injury No. 3 is an incised wound having ‘L’ shape on the left hand’s little finger, seems to be caused by sharp edged weapon but simple in nature and • Injury No. 4 is an incised wound on the right hand’s thumb measuring 2cm, seems to be caused by sharp edged weapon but simple in nature. Thereafter, he stated that these injuries were old which were sustained before five to seven days from the date of injury report (Ex.P/68) (i.e., date of incident, 31.10.2014); the report contains his signatures from ‘A’ to ‘B’, whereas ‘C’ to ‘D’ contains accused Sunil’s identity impression; ‘E’ to ‘F’ contains duration of injuries. During cross-examination, it was admitted by witness (PW- 26) that injuries no. 1 to 4 were superficial. The witness (PW-26) further explained that the colour of abrasions were dark brown/black in colour. Generally, the abrasions have red colour initially, and it would be wrong to say that the abrasions have bright red colour at the start. While explaining the progression in change of colour, the witness stated that the red colour lasts for 24 hours, thereafter it changes into brown colour which lasts for 12 to 24 hours, then finally it changes into dark brown/black colour, which develops only after 5 to 7 days. He stated that the duration of injuries as mentioned in the injury report (Ex.P/68), was concluded by him on the basis of the colour of abrasions. He stated that the duration of injuries as mentioned in the injury report (Ex.P/68), was concluded by him on the basis of the colour of abrasions. With regard to the postmortem report, it was stated by the witness that the temperature of the dead body is one of the best alternative to find out the time period of death and as the temperature of the body was not measured by us, time period of death was assessed on the basis of rigor mortis. PW-27 Sita Ram was posted as the SHO at Police Station, Abu Road City on the date of incident (31.10.2014). On the same date, he was telephonically informed by Om Prakash Agarwal that his brother Rajendra Kumar’s body was smeared with blood and was lying at his house situated at Santpur. Upon this information, he along with Ghanshyam Singh, Constable Mohan Lal, Pancharam, Prakash, Mustaq Quereshi and the jeep driver Anil Kumar proceeded to the place of occurrence after recording the rawangi report in the Roznamcha which was Ex. P/66, from ‘A’ to ‘B’ were his signatures. He stated that on arrival at the place of incident, deceased’s brother Omprakash s/o Prahlad Rai gave him a written report (Ex.P/1) which, he had sent for registering the case to the Police Station through Constable Prakash Kumar. Afterwards, Prakash went to the Police Station and lodged the case bearing registration number 290/2014. Then, the constable informed him about the case number and again brought that report to him. On the written report (Ex. P/1 ), at the place from ‘A’ to ‘B’ was signature of Omprakash, from ‘C’ to ‘D’ was signature of Constable Prakash Kumar, from ‘E’ to ‘ F’ were signatures of Incharge of Police Station and from ‘G’ to ‘H’ were his signatures. Investigation was undertaken by him and during the course thereof, he inspected the place of incident and prepared a site plan and Halat Mauka at the instance of the complainant and witnesses which was Ex. P/2, on which, at the place from ‘A’ to ‘B’, ‘C’ to ‘D’ and ‘E’ to ‘F’ were signatures of complainant and witnesses and from ‘G’ to ‘H’ were his signatures. P/2, on which, at the place from ‘A’ to ‘B’, ‘C’ to ‘D’ and ‘E’ to ‘F’ were signatures of complainant and witnesses and from ‘G’ to ‘H’ were his signatures. Blood stains lying on the pucca floor of the place of incident were lifted with the aid of a white cloth strip which was packed in a plastic bag and was sealed and marked as ‘D’ and the seizure memo of the same was Ex. P/3, on which, at the place from ‘A’ to ‘B’, ‘C’ to ‘D’, ‘E’ to ‘F’ were signatures of complainant and witnesses; from ‘G’ to ‘H’ contain his signatures and on ‘X’ mark specimen seal was affixed. PW-27 further stated that he had given Information to MOB Team to collect chance prints from the place of incident and the same were taken in his presence which was Ex. P/4, where at the place from ‘I’ to ‘J’ was his signature. A steel lock at the place of incident was found broken from the hook between the doors of the room which was seized in presence of witnesses vide memo Ex. P/6 and the same was sealed and marked as ‘A’. On Ex. P/6, at the place from ‘A’ to ‘B’, ‘C’ to ‘D’, ‘E’ to ‘F’ were signatures of the complainant and the witnesses, from ‘G’ to ‘H’ were his signature and, whereas at the place marked ‘X’, specimen seal was affixed. The I.O. further stated that 3 buttons and 12 pearls were found at the place of incident and the same were seized by the Police in the presence of complainant Omprakash vide memo Ex.P/ 5. These were sealed and marked as ‘C’. “POLO CLUB BEVERLY HILLS” was engraved on buttons (Ex. P/5). On seizure memo (Ex.P/5) at the place from ‘A’ to ‘B’, ‘C’ to ‘D’, ‘E’ to ‘F’ were signatures of the complainant and the witnesses; from ‘G’ to ‘H’ were his signatures and where at the place marked as ‘X’, specimen seal was affixed. Panchnama and Surat-e-hal of dead body of deceased Rajendra s/o Prahlad Rai, by caste Agarwal, r/o Patel Colony, Santpur were prepared in presence of witnesses and exhibited as Ex. Panchnama and Surat-e-hal of dead body of deceased Rajendra s/o Prahlad Rai, by caste Agarwal, r/o Patel Colony, Santpur were prepared in presence of witnesses and exhibited as Ex. P/7, where at the place from ‘A’ to ‘B’, ‘C’ to ‘D’, ‘E’ to ‘F’, ‘G’ to ‘H’, ‘I’ to ‘J’ contained signatures of the complainant and Panchan; where at the place from ‘K’ to ‘L’ had his signatures. On the same day, dated 01.11.2014, the blood stained clothes of the deceased Rajendra, i.e jeans-pant, shirt and vest, were taken in possession by the Police from the mortuary in presence of witnesses, which were sealed and marked as ‘D’ vide memo Ex. P/ 8, where at the place from ‘A’ to ‘B’, ‘C’ to ‘D’, ‘E’ to ‘F’ were signatures of the complainant and the witnesses; from ‘G’ to ‘H’ was his signature and, whereas at place marked as ‘X’, specimen seal was affixed. The I.O. further stated that the photographs of the deceased and the place of incident were photographed and on receiving the same, they were marked as Ex. P/34 to Ex. P/48 and included in the case file, where at the places from ‘A’ to ‘B’ were his signatures. On the spot, photographs were also photographed by MOB Team and upon receiving the same, they were also included in the case file which were exhibited from Ex. P/49 to Ex. P/63. Incharge of Forensic Mobile Unit acted on the spot and clicked photographs. He further stated that photographs and crime scene examination report were included in the case file which was Ex.P/69, where from the place ‘A’ to ‘B’ had his signature; from ‘C’ to ‘D’ marked as his endorsement. Photographs were attached to the report as Ex. P/70 to Ex. P/78 which were included in the case file, where from ‘A’ to ‘B’ was his signature in the form of verification and signature of Incharge of mobile unit were also present. Entry made in Roznamcha after returning from the place of incident is Ex. P/79, which bears his signature from ‘A’ to ‘B’ in the form of verification. During investigation, he took the statements of witnesses, namely, Mahesh Kumar, Om Prakash, Sumit Bansal, Jaswant Prajapat, Baburam, Leik Ahmed, Dimple Rani, Dhanpat Singh, Gopilal, Kaluram, Om Prakash, Madhusudan and Nitesh etc. and according to their versions, statements of these witnesses were noted down. P/79, which bears his signature from ‘A’ to ‘B’ in the form of verification. During investigation, he took the statements of witnesses, namely, Mahesh Kumar, Om Prakash, Sumit Bansal, Jaswant Prajapat, Baburam, Leik Ahmed, Dimple Rani, Dhanpat Singh, Gopilal, Kaluram, Om Prakash, Madhusudan and Nitesh etc. and according to their versions, statements of these witnesses were noted down. He further stated that during investigation he procured the call detail record of the deceased Rajendra Kumar’s mobile number 8875698730, which were included in the case file. Call Detail record of Sunil Kumar’s mobile number 9950394951 was also procured and the same was also included in the case file. These Call Detail records were exhibited from Ex. P/80 to Ex. P/91, where at the place from ‘A’ to ‘B’ were his signature in the form of verification. On analysing the CDR and the tower locations, it was concluded that Sunil kumar was present with the deceased on the date of the incident. During investigation on 05.11.2014, accused Sunil s/o Shantilal, caste Soni, was arrested in front of the witnesses at Sadar Bazaar vide arrest memo Ex. P/ 12, on which ‘A’ to ‘B’, ‘C’ to ‘D’ were signatures of witnesses and ‘E’ to ‘F’ were signatures of the accused Sunil Kumar and ‘G’ to ‘H’ were his signatures. Witness Nilesh Kumar presented the photographs of engagement of the deceased which were included in the case file were marked from Ex. P/10 to P/13. Accused Sunil Kumar, while he was in police custody called and told him that “I had killed Rajendra with the knife in the mid-night of 30.10.2014, then I put my clothes stained with blood in a bag and came from Rajendra’s house wearing his pant and shirt, which I took from his house only. And then, I hid the bag containing my blood stained clothes in my house. The next day, I went to my maternal uncle’s (Mama) house in Posaliya, then after deboarding the bus, I had thrown the bag in ditch covered with bushes near the Posaliya Bridge.” The memo Ex. P/92 which was prepared under Section 27 of the Evidence Act contained his signature from place ‘A’ to ‘B’ and ‘C’ to ‘D’ contained signature of accused Sunil Kumar. P/92 which was prepared under Section 27 of the Evidence Act contained his signature from place ‘A’ to ‘B’ and ‘C’ to ‘D’ contained signature of accused Sunil Kumar. In furtherance of the aforesaid information, on 06.11.2014, Sunil led the IO near the Posaliya Bridge and pointed towards the place where the bag with the blood stained clothes were thrown by him which he brought from the bushes. The Police sealed and marked the recovered blood stained shirt, blood stained jeans, vest, shirt and a cloth bag from E/1 to E/6 and put them in a cloth bag, which was sealed and marked ‘E’ in the presence of witnesses vide memo Ex. P/13, and on the same, at the place ‘A’ to ‘B’, ‘C’ to ‘D’ contained signatures of witnesses, ‘E’ to ‘F’ contained signatures of accused Sunil and ‘G’ to ‘H’ were his signatures and the marked place “X” on the memo, denotes the sealed sample. Ex. P/ 14 was the site map of the place of recovery which was prepared, on which ‘A’ to ‘B’, ‘C’ to ‘D’ were signatures of witnesses, ‘E’ to ‘F’ were signatures of Sunil and ‘G’ to ‘H’ was his signature. The buttons of the shirt of the deceased, on which “POLO CLUB BEVERLY HILLS” was engraved, were found matching to the buttons seized from the place of incident (Ex.P/5). After that on 07.11.2014, accused Sunil himself called out while he was in police custody and told that “In the midnight of 30.10.2014, I entered the house of the deceased located at Patel Colony and after killing him with a knife, I had stolen his gold chain from his neck, ring and bracelet from his hands, and silver biscuits and gold ornaments, lying in the Almirah of his house and after putting them in a plastic bag and putting the knife in its sheath, I returned to my house. I have hidden all the gold and silver ornaments in a cement bag which is placed in my house and have placed the dagger (knife) between clothes in an iron box, which no-one knows except me and I can show by walking along.” The aforesaid information was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and exhibited as Ex.P/93. At the place ‘A’ to ‘B’ were his signatures and ‘C’ to ‘D’ were signatures of the accused Sunil. At the place ‘A’ to ‘B’ were his signatures and ‘C’ to ‘D’ were signatures of the accused Sunil. On 07.011.2014, in furtherance of this information, the accused Sunil shows the covered dagger (knife) in a sheath, which was lying between the clothes in an iron box at his house, located in Sadar Bazar, which was seized vide memo Ex. P/24 and placed in a cloth bag which was marked as ‘F’ in presence of independent witness. On Ex. P/24, at the place ‘A’ to ‘B’ and ‘C’ to ‘D’ contained signatures of witnesses, ‘E’ to ‘F’ were signature of accused Sunil, ‘G’ to ‘H’ contained his signature and at the place marked ‘X’, specimen seal was affixed. On the same day, Sunil presented a plastic bag containing total 15 gold and silver ornaments, out of which 12 were of gold and 3 were of silver, which were seized and sealed, vide memo Ex. P/25 and marked as ‘G’,all the articles were weighed by him and site map of place of recovery was prepared and marked as Ex. P/26, on which ‘A’ to ‘B’, ‘C’ to ‘D’ were signatures of the witnesses, ‘E’ to ‘F’ was signature of accused Sunil and ‘G’ to ‘H’ was his signature. Afterwards on 09.11.2014, Sunil himself called him, while he was in police custody and stated that he could show the place where he had killed Rajendra with a dagger (knife) at his house in Patel Colony. This information, Ex. P/94 was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, on which ‘A’ to ‘B’ were his signatures and ‘C’ to ‘D’ were the signatures of accused Sunil. As per the information, as mentioned above, the accused pointed towards the place of incident and the memo was prepared which was Ex. P/9, on which ‘A’ to ‘B’, ‘C’ to ‘D’ were signatures of witnesses and ‘G’ to ‘H’ was his signature. A gold chain having R.K. Agarwal engraved on it was seized. On enquiring, it was found that the jewel articles were purchased from Shivhari Madhusudan Jewellers by the deceased Rajendra and the description of the seized jewel articles was stated in Ex. P/23 on which ‘A’ to ‘B’ were signatures of th jeweller Madhusudan and ‘C’ to ‘D’ were his signatures; photographs of the purchase bills are exhibited from Ex. P/15-A to Ex. P/23 on which ‘A’ to ‘B’ were signatures of th jeweller Madhusudan and ‘C’ to ‘D’ were his signatures; photographs of the purchase bills are exhibited from Ex. P/15-A to Ex. P/22-A and on which ‘A’ to ‘B’ were signatures of Madhusudhan and some of these bills were also signed by the deceased Rajendra. The seized articles were submitted in Maalkhana, entry of which was made in register at Sl. No.396/2014, certified copy of which is Ex. P/32-A, on which ‘A’ to ‘B’ were his signatures. On 24.11.2014, the seized articles i.e. clothes and goods were handed over to Gopilal to carry the same to the S.P. Office along with forwarding letter (Ex. P/29) for the purpose of sending them to FSL for comparison. From the S.P. Office, the seized articles were forwarded to FSL, Udaipur on 25.11.2014 along with a forwarding letter (Ex.P/33) in intact condition in a sealed packet, receipt (Ex. P/30) of which was provided to him. On the preceding day, i.e. 24.11.2014, for the verification of the specimen finger print impressions and chance impressions, a constable from the Police Station was sent to SP Office along with specimen of finger prints and chance impressions with forwarding letter (Ex. P/28), where the forwarding letter (Ex. P/64) was prepared for the purpose of sending these articles to the Finger Print Bureau, Jaipur. On Ex.P/28 and Ex.P/64 from the places ‘A’ to ‘B’ were his signatures and receipt of depositing the specimen of finger prints and chance impressions was Ex.P/31, on which from the place ‘A’ to ‘B’ were his signatures. After verification, the FSL Report (Ex.P/95) and the examination report of Finger Print Bureau, Jaipur (Ex.P/96) were received. Ex.P/97 & P/98 were the specimen finger prints of accused – Sunil, on which from the places ‘A’ to ‘B’ consist of his signatures and from ‘C’ to ‘D’ include signature of accused Sunil. The I.O. stated that the Finger Print Bureau, Rajasthan Police took the photographs of finger prints and the said photographs were received with the report (Ex.P/64) which was placed on record. In this case, Postmortem Report (Ex.P/65) of the deceased was received and was placed on record on which from the place ‘M’ to ‘N’ were enclosed with I.O.’s signature. The I.O. stated that the Finger Print Bureau, Rajasthan Police took the photographs of finger prints and the said photographs were received with the report (Ex.P/64) which was placed on record. In this case, Postmortem Report (Ex.P/65) of the deceased was received and was placed on record on which from the place ‘M’ to ‘N’ were enclosed with I.O.’s signature. The injuries which were sustained by the accused Sunil have been medically examined by Medical Officer, CHC Abu Road and the injury report (Ex.P/68) was received and taken on record, on which from the places ‘G’ to ‘H’ bear his signatures. While arresting the accused, the witness found injuries on the hand of the accused. In this way, the I.O. supported the story of the prosecution, but during cross-examination, he admitted that it was not mentioned in Ex. P/1 that with whom, the deceased was last seen alive. He further admitted that the chance impressions, finger prints and foot prints were not obtained in presence of Magistrate. After perusal of the case diary, he stated that he did not call Om Prakash S/o Babu Lal on 01.11.2014, whereas PW-8 Om Prakash S/o Babu Lal stated that Police Officials called him at night and recorded his statement the following day in the morning. He further admitted that test identification parade was not conducted by him with regard to the statement of Om Prakash. He further admitted that there was no evidence which demonstrated that Mobile No. 8875698730 was used by the deceased Rajendra or that the sim of Mobile No. 99503999517 was exclusively used by accused Sunil Kumar. The I.O. further admitted that sample of accused’s blood was not sent to FSL to find out the blood group, which in our opinion, would be necessary in the present case because as per the prosecution case, injuries were sustained by the accused-appellant during the occurrence and, therefore, it was necessary to find out whether the blood found on the weapon, recovered clothes etc. was that of deceased or of accused-appellant. Sita Ram further admitted that he had not conducted any test identification in regard to recovered ornaments (Articles 1 to 19) before any Magistrate. He had not taken any finger prints from the weapon knife (dagger). was that of deceased or of accused-appellant. Sita Ram further admitted that he had not conducted any test identification in regard to recovered ornaments (Articles 1 to 19) before any Magistrate. He had not taken any finger prints from the weapon knife (dagger). It would be pertinent to mention here that although as per prosecution, the weapon primarily used in the murder was knife, but according to the description of weapon, as narrated in the statement of PW-14 Pankaj Agarwal, it was a dagger, but that weapon was wrongly described as “Knife” by the Investigating Officer. Even the learned Trial Court ignored/ over-looked this aspect as appears in the statement of PW-14 Pankaj Agarwal. It was also admitted by the Investigating Officer that the clothes were recovered from an open place, accessible to all. It is also an admitted position that no independent witness was associated in the recovery of clothes, wherein, it would be vital to mention that the driver of the private vehicle, i.e., Scorpio, was available at the time of recovery. The IO also admitted that no test identification was held/conducted in regard to the white-shirt and yellowish brown pant/trouser (matmela pant) with the help of brother of the deceased or any other relatives. In the case of Digamber Vaishnav & Anr. Vs. State of Chhattishgarh (supra) regarding the aspect of last seen, it has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court:- “40. …….. It is settled that the circumstance of last seen together cannot by itself form the basis of holding accused guilty of offence. If there is any credible evidence that just before or immediately prior to the death of the victims, they were last seen along with the accused at or near about the place of occurrence, the needle of suspicion would certainly point to the accused being the culprits and this would be one of the strong factors or circumstances inculpating them with the alleged crime purported on the victims. However, if the last seen evidence does not inspire the confidence or is not trust worthy, there can be no conviction. However, if the last seen evidence does not inspire the confidence or is not trust worthy, there can be no conviction. To constitute the last seen together factor as as incriminating circumstance, there must be close proximity between the time of seeing and recovery of dead body.” In the present case also, upon evaluating the evidence of the last seen witness PW-8 Om Prakash, it can be concluded safely that he was neither sure about the date, on which he saw the deceased (Rajendra) with the accused, whether it was on 30.10.2014 or 31.10.2014, nor was he assured about the identity of accused-person, as is manifest from his statement. During his cross-examination, he also stated that he met Sunil, the accused, for the first time only on the call of police for the purpose of visiting the place of occurrence. He stated that when he went to the Rajendra’s house, he remained there only for two minutes and had a very short conversation with Rajendra outside his house; the person, who was present with Rajendra at his house, was not previously known to him. He could not say about features or whereabouts of the accused. Therefore, we are inclined to discard his evidence regarding last seen. Regarding the admissibility of the finger prints, in the case of Nagaraja Vs. State of Karnataka (supra), while referring to the another case of Mohd. Aman Vs. State of Rajasthan [ 1997 (10) SCC 44 ], it was held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court:- “‘Even though the specimen fingerprints of Mohd. Aman had to be taken on a number of occasions at the behest of the Bureau, they were never taken before or under the order of a Magistrate in accordance with Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act. It is true that under Section 4 thereof police is competent to take finger-prints of the accused but to dispel any suspicion as to its bona fides or to eliminate the possibility of fabrication of evidence it was eminently desirable that they were taken before or under the order of a Magistrate…….’” In the case of Raju & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) also in respect of finger-prints, while referring to the another case of Sunder & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan [2015 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 502], it has been held by the Court:- “’19. Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) also in respect of finger-prints, while referring to the another case of Sunder & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan [2015 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 502], it has been held by the Court:- “’19. …………… relied upon rule 6.26 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, to hold that if footprints are not lifted before the Magistrate, they cannot be relied.’” It has been further held by the Court:- “36. By giving detailed reasons, we have excluded the recovery of ornaments from the accused and since specimen foot molds of accused and specimen fingerprints were not taken into possession in presence of Magistrate, for the suspicious circumstances noticed by us, we have discarded these pieces of evidence also.” In the case of Ashish Jain Vs. Makrand Singh (supra) while dealing with the aspect of lifting of the fingerprints, it has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court:- “27. ….. ……. The absence of a Magisterial order casts doubts on the credibility of the finger-print evidence, specially with respect to the packing and sealing of the tumblers on which finger-prints were allegedly found, given that the attesting witnesses were not independent being the family members of the deceased.” We are of the view that, in the case at hand, it is crystal clear, upon going through the statements of the witnesses that the finger-prints were not collected faithfully and the entire exercise does not inspire confidence, therefore, the whole procedure of lifting the finger-prints has to be disbelieved and discarded. In the case of Bheru Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), while dealing with the aspect of recovery, the following has been observed by this Court:- “14. …. …We find that the ornaments were not produced, exhibited and identified before the trial court during the evidence of Badri Lal, the sole identifying witness of the ornaments. No question was put to Badri Lal in his evidence with respect to the identification of the ornaments recovered. Therefore, merely recovery of the ornaments by the investigating agency is not sufficient unless the same are produced before the trial court and identified by the prosecution witnesses to show that these very ornaments were worn by the deceased at the time of the incident. Therefore, merely recovery of the ornaments by the investigating agency is not sufficient unless the same are produced before the trial court and identified by the prosecution witnesses to show that these very ornaments were worn by the deceased at the time of the incident. The learned trial court should have taken proper care to get the ornaments exhibited and identified in the Court failing which recovery becomes worthless and the same cannot be used as a material piece of evidence. Hence, we are of the view that recovery of the ornaments (gold and silver) is not worth reliance and credence in the present case, therefore, the same is required to be discarded. The learned trial court thus fell in error in using the circumstance of recovery of ornaments as an incriminating circumstance against the accused- appellant in the present case. 15. ...… …. …. In our opinion, the presence of blood group ‘B’ on the Pant (Trouser) and Shirt of the accused-appellant in itself is not sufficient to establish guilt of the accused appellant unless the same is connected by the substantive piece of evidence in the present case.” While referring to the judgment in the case of Mustkeem V/s State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 2011 SC 2769 , it has been further observed by this Court that:- “16. Our view is supported by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mustkeem V/s State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2011 SC 2769 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- ‘23…..At any rate, due to the reasons elaborated in the following paragraphs, the fact that the traces of blood found on the deceased matched those found on the recovered weapons cannot ipso facto enable us to arrive at the conclusion that the latter were used for the murder. 25. It is too well settled in law that where the 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. No doubt, it is true that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be decided on the touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence, which has been well settled by law by this Court….. 27. No doubt, it is true that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be decided on the touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence, which has been well settled by law by this Court….. 27. With regard to Section 27 of the Act, what is important is discovery of the material object at the disclosure of the accused but such disclosure alone would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the offence was also committed by the accused. In fact, thereafter, burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between discovery of the material objects and its use in the commission of the offence. What is admissible under Section 27 of the Act is the information leading to discovery and not any opinion formed on it by the prosecution.’” In our opinion, the recovery of ornaments in the present case is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the testimonies of Investigating Officer Sita Ram (PW-27), Pankaj Agarwal (PW-14) and Ajay Agarwal (PW-21). Although the IO failed to conduct the Test Identification Parade, the concerned jeweller, namely Madhusudan (PW-13), provided with the details of all the jewellery items bought by the deceased (Ex.P/23) and also identified the recovered ornaments in the Court during his cross-examination, and stated that recovered ornaments were purchased by the deceased Rajendra from his shop while giving details of various bills with regard to purchase of each ornament. In the case of Ramesh Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), while dealing with the aspect of last seen, blood group and requirement of Certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act in support of call details with reference to the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Sonvir @ Somvir Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2018) 8 SCC 24 ; Prakash Vs. State of Karnataka [ (2014) 12 SCC 133 ]; and Debapriya Pal Vs. State of West Bengal [ (2017) 11 SCC 31 ], the following has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court:- “’26.3.4. The mere matching of the blood-group of the blood samples taken from the bed-sheet at the scene of crime, and the blood-stained shirt recovered from Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2) cannot lead to the conclusion that the appellant had been involved in the commission of the crime. 26.3.5. The mere matching of the blood-group of the blood samples taken from the bed-sheet at the scene of crime, and the blood-stained shirt recovered from Sonvir @ Somvir (Appellant-Accused No. 2) cannot lead to the conclusion that the appellant had been involved in the commission of the crime. 26.3.5. On this issue, reliance can be placed on two decisions of this Court in Prakash v. State of Karnataka [ (2014) 12 SCC 133 ; paragraphs 41 and 45] and Debapriya Pal v. State of West Bengal [ (2017) 11 SCC 31 ; paragraph 8] wherein this Court while deciding cases based on circumstantial evidence had held that mere matching of the (5 of 15) [CRLA-545/2013] blood group cannot lead to the conclusion of the culpability of the accused, in the absence of a detailed serological comparison, since millions of people would have the same blood group.’ 16. …. …… ……. The certificate required under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, 1872, was not proved on record with regard to the call details of the said accused. Hence, the learned trial court rightly held that conviction of accused Siyaram, Vijay Singh, Gajendra Singh and Jaggi @ Jagdish could not be ordered merely on the basis of their call details without any incriminating material on record connecting them with the crime-in-question.” Taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of the instant case and in light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that mere matching of the blood group of the deceased with the blood stained clothes of the accused, cannot lead to conclusion regarding culpability of the accused in absence of detailed serological comparison of blood group of accused Sunil as well as recovery of clothes beyond reasonable doubt, as it was not conducted in presence of any independent witness. Regarding furnishing of Certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act for genuineness of the (Ex.P/80 to Ex.P/91) call detail record, upon scrutinizing the entire record of the present case, we are unable to find any such certificate on record in support of the call details procured and relied upon by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, in these circumstances, the call details produced in the present case are of no consequence, as mandatory requirement of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act was not complied with. Therefore, in these circumstances, the call details produced in the present case are of no consequence, as mandatory requirement of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act was not complied with. Therefore, in our opinion, there may be a strong suspicion for commission of crime by the appellant, but strong suspicion cannot substitute the requirement of legal, unimpeachable and reliable evidence. Furthermore, with regard to torturing of the accused Sunil, it was wrongly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused-appellant Sunil Kumar had been tortured by the Police Officials and the injuries were subjected to him due to a beating, because the accused-appellant was arrested on 05.11.2014 and was examined by the Medical Officer on the very same date and therefore, this argument cannot be accepted that the signatures of the accused-appellant which were obtained on various memos and the information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, was obtained by the Police Officers after torturing him. Thus, after thoroughly re-appreciating the evidence on record, we have no hesitation in holding that:- a) As per the statements of witnesses regarding recovery of ornaments; recovered ornaments were identified by the jeweller Madhusudan (PW-13) and he had also produced the relevant bills (Ex.P/15-A to Ex.P/22-A) regarding purchase of the ornaments by the deceased Rajendra from his shop; these ornaments were recovered (Ex.P/25) from the house of the accused-appellant at his instance (Ex.P/93), although this plea was taken by the accused-appellant that these ornaments belong to his shop, named, “Krishna Jewellers” but he has failed to prove/establish his ownership over the recovered ornaments by producing any evidence which shows that the questioned ornaments belong to his shop “Krishna Jewellers”. b) There is no direct evidence to attribute the appellant with the crime of murdering Rajendra. c) The prosecution has failed to conduct test identification parade because as per PW-8 – Om Prakash, he did not know the accused before the alleged incident; d) Doctors have prepared postmortem report (Ex.P/65) on the basis of notes, prepared while conducting postmortem but the notes were not handed over to the police as the same were destroyed by the concerned Doctors; e) According to PW-27 Sita Ram SHO, he had not taken the finger prints from the alleged dagger (knife). The chance impressions were taken from the place of occurrence, but the same were not sealed. The chance impressions were taken from the place of occurrence, but the same were not sealed. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that these finger prints and chance prints are of the appellant, as the prosecution has utterly failed to take the chance prints/impressions and finger prints of the appellant be collated with the chance prints or finger prints taken during investigation; f) The call details (Ex.P/80 to Ex.P/91), produced in the present case, are of no consequence, as the mandatory requirement of the provision (Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act) was not complied with; and, g) The accused has not tried to disappear and/or destroy the evidence, even the blood stains at the house of the deceased Rajendra were found inself-same condition and he did not even try to wash out the blood stains found on the floor, buttons, pearls, pieces of mirror and the clothes of himself and of the deceased Rajendra. Thus, there is no reliable evidence on record which can establish the charge of Sections 302 and 201 IPC against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court with regard to the conviction of the accused-appellant for offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC is not sustainable, as the Trial Court erred in appreciating the evidence on record with regard to the recovery of blood stained clothes, evidence of last seen witness and call detail reports. The above-mentioned disparity would lead to evasion of the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, as the accused was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 380 IPC, we are of the opinion that the sentences awarded to him deserves to be maintained but taking an overall view of the matter, interest of justice would only be served if the accused is released, taking into consideration the period of sentence he has already undergone in custody. As per the judgment passed by the Trial Court in regard to the disposal of the seized ornaments, the relevant observations in the judgment is reproduced again for ready reference:- ^^ogha vfHk;qDr ls cjkenk QnZ cjkenxh ds vuqlkj tsojkr e`rd ds fdlh fof/kd okfjl }kjk Dyse fd;s tkus ij ckn xqtjus E;kn vihy@vihy ugha gksus dh lwjr esa ykSVk;s tkosaA^^ Whereas, as per the statement of PW-1 Om Prakash, the deceased Rajendra have two brothers and two sisters, therefore, as per the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Nevada Properties Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in AIR 2019 SC 4554 (vide paragraph No. 13) wherein, it has been held that:- “However, an order under Section 452 Cr.P.C. is not an order determining title or ownership but that of the right to possession, and therefore where serious claims to ownership are put forward, it would be best if the criminal court directs the parties to establish their claim before the civil court.” Considering the position of law, as mentioned above, for the present case, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the property (silver and gold ornaments) as per the decision upon the claim proceedings. Accordingly, the instant appeal deserves to be and is hereby partly allowed. The impugned judgment dated 30.11.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Abu Road, District Sirohi in Sessions Case No. 65/2016 (12/2015) (CIS No. 12/2015) is hereby quashed and set aside upto the extent of offences punishable under Sections 302 & 201 IPC. The accused-appellant is acquitted of both the charges. However, his conviction for the offence under Section 380 IPC and the sentence of five years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- awarded to him on this count is maintained. It may be mentioned here that the appellant has already remained in prison from 05.11.2014 and thus, he has already served out the substantive sentence for the offence under Section 380 IPC. Thus, he shall be released from prison upon depositing fine imposed by the Trial Court and if not wanted in any other case. It may be mentioned here that the appellant has already remained in prison from 05.11.2014 and thus, he has already served out the substantive sentence for the offence under Section 380 IPC. Thus, he shall be released from prison upon depositing fine imposed by the Trial Court and if not wanted in any other case. The Trial Court is directed to equally divide seized ornaments among legal heirs of the deceased Rajendra, i.e., his two brothers and two sisters, if recovered ornaments cannot be distributed in four equal shares then, little higher share will be given to sister/sisters; and in case of any dispute, the concerned parties shall be at liberty to put forth their claim regarding distribution/possession over the seized ornaments before the competent Civil Court. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- 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.