JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. The appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 28.10.2017 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Bikaner in Sessions Case No.42/2014:- Offence under Section Sentences Fine Sentence in lieu of default of payment of fine 302 IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.50,000/- 6 month’s Additional S.I. 201 IPC 5 Years’ R.I. Rs.5,000/- 2 Months’ Additional S.I. 120B IPC Life imprisonment Rs.50,000/- 6 Months’ Additional S.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. They have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. for assailing their conviction and the sentences awarded to them by the trial court by the impugned judgment. 3. Briefly stated the facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant appeal are noted hereinbelow:- 4. Shri Krishan Ram (PW.6) submitted a written report (Ex.P/15) to the SHO, PS Kalu District Bikaner on 13.05.2014 at 01:30 pm alleging inter alia that his elder brother Ram Chandra left his home on 08.05.2014 in the morning at about 9 o’ clock saying that he was going to collect payment towards sale of cattle herd from Setha Ram. On 11.05.2014, a call was received from Setha Ram’s phone on the mobile phone of Sahab Ram and an enquiry was made as to whether Ram Chandra had reached home. Sahab Ram replied in the negative on which, Setha Ram disconnected the phone. On 13.05.2014, an information was received regarding a dead body lying in a field near Kalu Pyau, upon which the informant, along with Jetha Ram, Mani Ram, Manaram and Satpal went there and saw the dead body of Ram Chandra lying in a ramshackle roofless building. He alleged that some unknown persons had murdered his brother. On the basis of this report, an FIR No.41/2014 (Ex.P/16) came to be registered at the Police Station Kalu and investigation was assigned to the SHO PS Kalu Shri Manoj Kumar (PW.14). The dead body of Shri Ram Chandra was subjected to autopsy by a medical board which issued the postmortem report (Ex.P/14) taking note of the fact that the victim had been subjected to genital mutilation. The body was in an advanced stage of decomposition. Maggots were present therein. The visceras were preserved for serological and chemical examination. The dead body of Shri Ram Chandra was subjected to autopsy by a medical board which issued the postmortem report (Ex.P/14) taking note of the fact that the victim had been subjected to genital mutilation. The body was in an advanced stage of decomposition. Maggots were present therein. The visceras were preserved for serological and chemical examination. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of witnesses some of whom, gave evidence of last seen, against the accused appellants on the basis whereof, they were arrested. It is alleged that acting on the informations provided by the accused, incriminating recoveries of certain personal articles of the deceased and some blood stained articles were effected. After concluding the investigation, the IO filed a charge-sheet against the accused appellants, Mangla Ram S/o Shri Setha Ram and Mamraj S/o Shri Setha Ram for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120B, 147 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3 (ii)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 5. The case was committed to the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Bikaner for trial where charges were framed against the accused appellants and two co-accused persons for the above offences. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 79 documents to prove its case. The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and upon being confronted with the allegations appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, they denied the same; claimed that they had been falsely implicated in the case and sought acquittal. Two witnesses were examined and three documents were exhibited in defence. The trial court formulated the points of consideration in the following terms:- “(1). Whether Ram Chandra, molested the wife of Setha Ram on the night of 08.05.2014 on which, she raised a hue and cry on which, the accused appellants and the co-accused persons, beat up Ram Chandra to a state of unconsciousness. Thereafter, he was boarded on to a jeep by the accused and was taken to the roofless room where, he was again beaten and his genital organs were mutilated, which caused his death and accused along with co-accused hatched a criminal conspiracy of murdering Ramchandra, after he became unconscious at Setha Ram’s place. Thereafter, he was boarded on to a jeep by the accused and was taken to the roofless room where, he was again beaten and his genital organs were mutilated, which caused his death and accused along with co-accused hatched a criminal conspiracy of murdering Ramchandra, after he became unconscious at Setha Ram’s place. The same was orchestrated by boarding Ramchandra on the jeep and he was taken to a roofless room in Rohi Kalu and was beaten up and his genital organs were mutilated with an intention to kill him. Thereafter to hid the same evidence, the body of the deceased was left there in the room? (2). Whether the accused along with the co-accused on the given time and date, by killing Ramchandra, who belonged to Scheduled Caste, committed an offence, which deserves Life Imprisonment? (3). If yes, then with what punishment should the accused be penalized?” 6. The trial court, primarily placed reliance upon circumstantial evidence comprising of motive, last seen and recoveries to hold the appellants guilty of the charges by impugned judgment dated 28.10.2017 which is assailed in this appeal. 7. Shri J.S. Choudhary, Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Sampati Choudhary, Advocate vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. Shri Ram Chandra departed from his home on 08.05.2014 at around 9 am and his dead body was recovered on 13.05.2014. The prosecution witnesses who have given evidence of last seen, must have come to know about the unfortunate fate which had befallen Ram Chandra. However, no allegation whatsoever has been made in the FIR (Ex.P/16) attributing motive for commission of the crime or the allegation of last seen against the accused appellants. He urged that as per the FIR, the deceased left his house at about 9 o’ Clock in the morning saying that he would be approaching Setha Ram for collecting payment towards sale of a herd of sheep. However, a contrary story was set out in the evidence of Net Ram (PW.7) son of the deceased who stated that Setha Ram came to their house on 08.05.2014 and took his father away with himself in a vehicle which was being driven by Pandu Ram. However, a contrary story was set out in the evidence of Net Ram (PW.7) son of the deceased who stated that Setha Ram came to their house on 08.05.2014 and took his father away with himself in a vehicle which was being driven by Pandu Ram. Shri Choudhary submitted that had there been a semblance of truth in the evidence of Net Ram, then this important fact regarding the deceased having gone away with Setha Ram in his vehicle would definitely have been incorporated in the FIR which came to be filed on 13.05.2014 well after the dead body of Shri Ramchandra had been recovered. Shri Choudhary further submitted that the prosecution did not file charge sheet against Pandu Ram who as per Net Ram was present in the jeep in which the victim was taken away on 08.05.2015. Shri Choudhary further submitted that the witness Jetha Ram (PW.10), upon being examined in evidence, put-forth a new story that on 08.05.2014 in the evening he saw Setha Ram and Mangla Ram taking Ram Chandra away in a jeep. He urged that Jetha Ram accompanied Krishna Ram to the place where the dead body of Ram Chandra had been found and if at all there was an iota of truth in this claim of Jetha Ram, then he definitely be expected to divulge the fact of having seen the deceased in the company of the appellants herein on 08.05.2014. immediately at the time of recovery of the body. Shri Choudhary fervently contended that the prosecution has failed to lead plausible evidence for establishing the circumstance of last seen because the conduct of the two witnesses examined to prove this circumstance i.e. Net Ram (PW.7) and Jetha Ram (PW.10) is highly unnatural. He urged that the recoveries of incriminating articles which have been attributed by the investigating agency to the accused appellants are totally unreliable because even the informations under Section 27 of the Evidence Act which the Investigating Officers Shri Manoj Kumar (PW.14) and Shri Banwari Lal Meena (PW.15) claim to have recorded at the instance of the accused were not proved as per law. Both the Investigating Officers, made a bald assertion in their evidence that the accused had given them the questioned informations and the trial court proceeded to undertake an empty formality of marking exhibits on the information memos without the contents thereof being proved by the Investigating Officers during the course of their deposition. Shri Choudhary placed reliance on the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Ashish Jain & Ors. v. Makrand Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 2019 SC 546 and urged that if the Investigating Officer during the sworn testimony, fails to narrate substance of the information allegedly provided by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the same cannot be accepted to be proved as per law. He further submitted that in the entire sequence of events between 13.05.2014 to 20.05.2014 viz the recoveries effected from the place of incident and the recoveries effected at the instance of the accused only Mani Ram, ASI (PW.12) and Sunil Dutt, HC (PW.2) were associated as Panch witnesses. The Investigating Officer made no effort whatsoever to associate independent witnesses from the locality and hence, the entire recovery procedure is tainted. 8. It was contended that neither could the prosecution prove the circumstance of last seen against the appellants nor were the recoveries proved as per law. Shri Choudhary further submitted that though the Investigating Officer claims to have recovered the personal articles i.e., a watch and a gold pendant of the deceased at the instance of the accused Setha Ram but these articles were not subjected to identification during investigation or when the concerned witnesses were examined on oath. Thus, the recoveries lose significance. He further submitted that the trial court relied upon the call detail records in order to draw an inference against the accused appellants but the prosecution failed to prove the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of the evidence Act and hence, the call detail records cannot be read in evidence. On these grounds, Shri Choudhary implored the Court to accept the appeal; set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused appellants of the charges. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants’ counsel. He contended that the prosecution has proved all the three incriminating circumstances viz. On these grounds, Shri Choudhary implored the Court to accept the appeal; set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the accused appellants of the charges. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants’ counsel. He contended that the prosecution has proved all the three incriminating circumstances viz. motive, last seen and incriminating recoveries against the appellants who failed to offer any plausible explanation for the unimpeachable lines in the chain of circumstantial evidence which point exclusively to the guilt of the accused-appellants and are inconsistent with their innocence. On these grounds, learned Public Prosecutor implored the Court to dismiss the appeal. 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have carefully re-appreciated the evidence available on record. 11. It is not in dispute that the prosecution case pertaining to the alleged murder of victim Ram Chandra is based purely on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has proposed three circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused-appellants:- (1) Motive, (2) Last seen and (3) Incriminating recoveries 12. Regarding the theory of motive, two stories were projected by the prosecution. The first story was that the deceased had sold a herd of sheep to the accused Setha Ram and went to his house for collecting the payment and that Setha Ram and his companions murdered the deceased in order to avoid the payment. However, in the point of consideration formulated by the trial court (supra), a theory was portrayed that Ram Chandra outraged modesty of Setha Ram’s wife and that is why, he was murdered by way of revenge. However, the prosecution has not led any evidence whatsoever on the second theory of revenge which is based purely on the confession made by the accused during custodial investigation and hence, this story could not be substantiated as per law. On the first aspect of motive, i.e, the accused Setha Ram being under an obligation to make payment to the deceased, the prosecution led evidence of witnesses Shyopat Ram P.W.4, who stated that Ram Chandra had sold 75 sheep to Haji Khan at the rate of Rs.4,000/-per head and Setha Ram stood guarantor in this transaction. Haji Khan did not make the payment to Ram Chandra. 13. Krishan Ram (PW.6), the first informant alleged that his brother Ram Chandra was killed for money. Haji Khan did not make the payment to Ram Chandra. 13. Krishan Ram (PW.6), the first informant alleged that his brother Ram Chandra was killed for money. However, he did not elaborate any such transaction towards which, Setha Ram owed money to Ram Chandra. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that Ram Chandra owed money to many people. However, Setha Ram owed money to Ram Chandra. He agreed that Ram Chandra had sold his sheep and goats to Haji Khan, resident of Mahajan and that the payment was to be made by Haji Khan. Setha Ram stood as a guarantor in this transaction. 14. Net Ram, son of the deceased Ram Chandra, upon being examined as PW.7 stated that his father had sold 75 sheep to Setha Ram at the rate of Rs.4,000/-per head. In cross-examination, he admitted that the sheep were actually sold to Haji Khan and Setha Ram was the guarantor. Apparently, if such transaction of sale of sheep had taken place, then, Haji Khan was liable to reimburse the deceased for the cattle sold to him. The Investigating Officer made no effort whatsoever to question Haji Khan in order to verify this allegation of prosecution. If at all, the transaction of sale of sheep had taken place between Ram Chandra and Haji Khan, then the natural course of action for getting the payment would have been to approach Haji Khan initially and not the alleged guarantor straightaway. Thus, this fictional prosecution theory of Setha Ram having murdered Ram Chandra with the motive of avoiding payment towards the sale of the herd of sheep is nothing but a sheer conjecture. Hence, we are of the firm opinion that both theories of motive attributed to the accused appellant Setha Ram for the alleged murder of Ram Chandra could not be substantiated as the evidence of the prosecution witnesses (referred to supra) is contradictory and unreliable. 15. The investigation of the case was conducted by two Investigating officers Manoj Kumar (PW.14) and Banwari Lal Meena (PW.15). Both officers purportedly recorded certain informations at the instance of the accused persons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and claim to have effected incriminating recoveries as a consequence thereof. 15. The investigation of the case was conducted by two Investigating officers Manoj Kumar (PW.14) and Banwari Lal Meena (PW.15). Both officers purportedly recorded certain informations at the instance of the accused persons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and claim to have effected incriminating recoveries as a consequence thereof. The witness Manoj Kumar (PW.14) made the following statement to prove one of the informations:- ^^QnZ bryk eaxykjke izŒ ih 58 gS ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA lh ls Mh eqyfte eaxykjke ds gLrk{kj gSA --- ** 16. The witness Manoj Kumar (PW.14) made the following statement to prove one of the informations:- ^^QnZ bryk eaxykjke izŒ ih 58 gS ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA lh ls Mh eqyfte eaxykjke ds gLrk{kj gSA --- ** 16. The witness Banwari Lal Meena (PW.15) gave the following evidence regarding the informations and recoveries allegedly effected at the instance of the accused:- ^^fnukad 20@5@14 dks eSa C.O. yq.kdj.klj ds in ij rSukr FkkA ml fnu i=koyh vuqla/kku gsr ,l-,p-vks- dkyw ls izkIr gqbZA fxjrkj'kqnk eqfYteku ls iqNrkN djus ij eqfYte ekejkt us QnZ bryk nh tks QnZ bryk EXP-67 gS ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gS lh ls Mh eqfYte ekejkt ds gLrk{kj gSA QnZ bZryk eqfYte lsBkjke EXP-68 gS ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gS ,Dl LFkku ij eqfYte lsBkjke th vaxqBk fu'kkuh gSA QnZ bryk eqfYte ekaxhyky EXP-69 gS ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gS ,Dl LFkku ij ekaxhyky dh vaxqBk fu'kkuh gSA QnZ bZryk eqfYte lsBkjke tks EXP-70 gS ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gS ,Dl LFkku ij lsBkjke dh vaxqBk fu'kkuh gSA QnZ bryk lsBkjke EXP-71 gS ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gS ,Dl LFkku ij lsBkjke dh vaxqBk fu'kkuh gSA QnZ cjkenxh ,d /kksrh ,d deht eqfYte lsBkjke EXP-4 gS ftl ij bZ ls ,Q esjs gLrk{kj gS , ls ch rFkk lh ls Mh ekSrfcjku ds gLrk{kj gSA ,Dl LFkku ij 'khy eksgj dk vadu gS rFkk ,Dl LFkku ij eqfYte lsBkjke dh vaxqBk fu'kkuh gSA uD'kk ekSdk cjkenxh LFky ,d /kksrh ,d deht eqfYte lsBkjke tks EXP-5 gSA ftl ij bZ ls ,Q esjs gLrk{kj gS , ls ch o lh ls Mh ekSrfcjku ds gLrk{kj gS ,Dl LFkku ij eqfYte lsBkjke dh vaxqBk fu'kkuh gSA gkykr ekSdk cjkenxh LFky /kksrh o deht EXP-5A gS ftl ij , ls ch] esjs gLrk{kj gSA QnZ cjkenxh ,d ?kM+h] lqugjs jax dh ewrhZ eqfYte lsBkjke EXP-6 gSA ftl ij bZ ls ,Q esjs gLrk{kj gS , ls ch o lh ls Mh ekSrfcjku ds gLrk{kj gSA ,Dl LFkku ij 'khy eksgj dk vadu gS ,Dl LFkku ij eqfYte lsBkjke dh vaxqBk fu'kkuh gSA uD'kk ekSdk cjkenxh LFky ?kM+h o eqrhZ EXP-7 gS ftl ij bZ ls ,Q esjs gLrk{kj gS , ls ch o lh ls Mh ekSrfcjku ds gLrk{kj gS ,Dl LFkku ij eqfYte lsBkjke dh vaxqBk fu'kkuh gSA gkykr ekSdk cjkenxh LFky ,d ?kM+h o ewrhZ tks EXP-7A gSA ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA QnZ cjkenxh ,d deht ,d isUV eqfYte ekaxhyky EXP-8 gS ftl ij bZ ls ,Q esjs gLrk{kj gS , ls ch o lh ls Mh ekSrfcjku ds gLrk{kj gS ,Dl LFkku ij uequk 'khy dk vadu gSA ,Dl LFkku ij eqfYte ekaxhyky dh vaxqBk fu'kkuh gSA uD'kk ekSdk cjkenxh LFky ,d deht o ,d isUV eqfYte ekaxhyky EXP-9 gS ftl ij bZ ls ,Q esjs gLrk{kj gS , ls ch o lh ls Mh ekSrfcjku ds gLrk{kj gSA ,Dl LFkku ij ekaxhyky dh vaxqBk fu'kkuh gSA gkykr ekSdk EXP-9A gS ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA QnZ cjkenxh ,d Mk;jh eqfYte ekejkt EXP-10 gS ftl ij bZ ls ,Q esjs gLrk{kj gS , ls ch o lh ls Mh ekSrfcjku ds gLrk{kj gS th ls ,p eqfYte ds gLrk{kj gSA ,Dl LFkku ij 'khy eksgj dk vadu gSA uD'kk ekSdk cjkenxh LFkku EXP-11 gS ftl ij bZ ls ,Q esjs gLrk{kj gS , ls ch o lh ls Mh ekSrfcjku ds gLrk{kj gS th ls ,p ekejkt ds gLrk{kj gSA gkykr ekSdk EXP-11A gS ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA QnZ cjkenxh ,d 'kh'kh IykfLVd tgj eqfYte lsBkjke EXP-12 gS ftl ij lh ls Mh esjs gLrk{kj gS , ls ch ekSrfcj ds gLrk{kj gS ,Dl LFkku 'khy eksgj dk vadu gS okbZ LFkku ij eqfYte lsBkjke dh vaxqBk fu'kkuh gSA gkykr ekSdk EXP-12A gS ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA nkSjkus vuqla/kku eSus eqfYte dk tkfr izek.k i= izkIr fd;k tks EXP-72 gS ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gS lh ls Mh 'kkfey i=koyh dk vadu gSA** (Emphasis supplied) 17. On a bare perusal of the above quoted statements of both the Investigating Officers i.e., Manoj Kumar and Banwari Lal Meena, it becomes apparent that neither did the learned Public Prosecutor make a sincere effort to legally prove contents of the informations allegedly provided by the accused to the IO under Section 27 of the Evidence Act nor did the Presiding Officer, remain vigilant enough while evidence of the Investigating Officers was recorded on oath. The informations were permitted to be proved in a most perfunctory manner. A memorandum of information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is virtually a recording of the conversation which takes place between the investigating officer and the accused and is taken down in writing. The part of the information which distinctly leads to discovery of an incriminating fact is admissible in evidence unfettered by the restrictions contained in Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Thus, for proving the contents of the information, the investigating officer would have to narrate as to what precisely were the words spoken by the accused which were then taken down into writing and led to the discovery of incriminating material. Reference in this regard may be had to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Damu & Ors. reported in AIR 2000 SC 1691 . The Presiding Officer remained a mute spectator in the proceedings and allowed the evidence of most important witnesses to be recorded in a most casual perfunctory manner. It was a situation warranting active intervention by the Presiding Officer by exercising powers under Section 165 of the Evidence Act to remove the lacuna. Be that as it may. 18. We have no hesitation in holding that the manner in which the evidence of the Investigating Officers (supra) was recorded for proving the informations provided by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is totally perfunctory and invalid and the informations were not proved as per law. In addition thereto, it is an admitted fact that only ASI Mani Ram (PW.12) and HC Sunil Dutt (PW.2) were associated in the recoveries allegedly effected pursuant to the informations given by the accused. The IO Banwari Lal Meena admitted in his evidence that he made no effort whatsoever to associate independent witnesses in the recovery proceeding. In addition thereto, it is an admitted fact that only ASI Mani Ram (PW.12) and HC Sunil Dutt (PW.2) were associated in the recoveries allegedly effected pursuant to the informations given by the accused. The IO Banwari Lal Meena admitted in his evidence that he made no effort whatsoever to associate independent witnesses in the recovery proceeding. He also admitted that no effort was made to get the watch and the pendant recovered at the instance of the accused identified through the family members of the deceased. In addition thereto, it may be stated here that the incriminating articles were allegedly forwarded to the FSL on the instructions of the IO Manoj Kumar (PW.14). He admitted in examination-in-chief that some objections were made regarding the sample packets at the FSL and the articles were returned to the Police Station and were then sent back to the FSL. No corresponding link evidence to ensure safe-keeping of the samples was led by the prosecution and hence, the recoveries and the FSL report lose significance. 19. After the circumstances of motive and recoveries are discarded, the only semblance of evidence which remains on record so as to connect the appellants with the alleged crime would be in the form of last seen. As has been mentioned above, Jetha Ram (PW.10) was one of the two prosecution witnesses examined to prove the circumstance of last seen. However, Jetha Ram was present with Krishan Ram, the first informant when the dead body was recovered. He signed the Panchayatnama Lash (inquest memo) (Ex.P/18) wherein, it has been recorded that Ram Chandra had been murdered by unknown assailants. If at all Jetha Ram had seen the deceased in the company of any of the accused on 08.05.2014, then his natural reaction would have been to disclose this fact before the police officials when Panchayatnama Lash was being prepared. Had there been an iota of truth in the version of Jetha Ram, then in natural course, he would have told so to Krishan Ram and this allegation of last seen would have been incorporated in the FIR. Hence, the evidence of Jetha Ram on the aspect of circumstance of last seen is not reliable. 20. Had there been an iota of truth in the version of Jetha Ram, then in natural course, he would have told so to Krishan Ram and this allegation of last seen would have been incorporated in the FIR. Hence, the evidence of Jetha Ram on the aspect of circumstance of last seen is not reliable. 20. Net Ram (PW.7) gave evidence to the effect that Setha Ram came to their house on 08.05.2014 between 04:30 to 5:00 pm and ushered his father with himself in a vehicle and thereafter his father did not return home and his dead body was found in the ramshackle building. Had there been an iota of truth in this allegation of Net Ram, then he definitely would have informed Krishan Ram that he had seen Setha Ram ushering his father from their home. Furthermore, as we have noted above, Krishan Ram mentioned in the FIR (Ex.P/16) that Setha Ram left the house in the morning at about 9 o’ clock saying that he would approach Setha Ram for collecting payment towards sale of sheep. Thus, there is a grave contradiction on the aspect as to when Ram Chandra actually left his home. The grave contradiction in the version as set out in the FIR (Ex.P/16) and the evidence of Net Ram (PW.7) makes the entire story doubtful. 21. The medical jurist Dr. Santosh Kumar (PW.3) took note of the fact that the genitals of the deceased had been mutilated. However, such injury was not opined to be the cause of death of Shri Ram Chandra. For that purpose, the visceras were preserved and were forwarded to the FSL from where report (Ex.P/64) was received establishing presence of neonicotinoide insecticide therein. However, for admitting the FSL report in the evidence, the prosecution would have to lead proper evidence to satisfy that the visceras were preserved properly and remained in self-same condition till they reached the FSL. A perusal of the evidence of Dr. Santosh Kumar (PW.3) indicates that he gave evidence regarding preservation of the visceras but did not state as to whom were the visceras were handed over for onward transmission to the FSL. The SHO Manoj Kumar did not make any statement as to the safekeeping and transmission of the viscera samples. Thus, there is a serious breach in the link evidence regarding sanctity of the visceras samples. The SHO Manoj Kumar did not make any statement as to the safekeeping and transmission of the viscera samples. Thus, there is a serious breach in the link evidence regarding sanctity of the visceras samples. As a consequence, we are of the firm opinion that the FSL report is of no advantage to the prosecution. 22. Even if it is accepted that the prosecution has been successful in proving the circumstance of last seen, then also in absence of any corroborative evidence, this sole circumstance cannot be considered sufficient to affirm the charges and hold accused guilty for murder as has been laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Satpal vs State of Haryana reported in (2018) 6 SCC 610 and Surajdeo Mahto vs State of Bihar reported in AIR 2021 SC 3643 . 23. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the view that the trial court committed grave error while appreciating the evidence and acted with gross illegality while holding that the prosecution proved the charge of murder of Shri Ram Chandra against the accused appellants beyond all manner of doubt on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The impugned judgment dated 28.10.2017 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Bikaner in Sessions Case No.42/2014 does not stand to scrutiny. Hence, the same is quashed and set aside. The accused appellants are acquitted of the charges. They are in custody and shall be released from prison forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 24. The appeal is allowed in these terms. 25. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the accused appellants Setha Ram and Mangilal are directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- each 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 appellants shall appear before the Supreme Court. 26. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.