JUDGMENT Pankaj Bhandari, J. - Accused/appellants-Ramphool @ Phool Ram @ Foolya and Nirmala @ Dhara, have preferred these Criminal Appeals aggrieved by the judgment and sentence dated 18.05.2017 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur, in Sessions Case No.41/2013 (27/2013), whereby, the accused-appellant-Ramphool @ Phool Ram @ Foolya, has been convicted for offences under Sections 302, 201 & 120-B of Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.'). For offence under Section 302 I.P.C., he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 months; for offence under Section 201 I.P.C., he has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 months and for offence under Section 120-B I.P.C., sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 months. Accused/appellant-Nirmala @ Dhara has been convicted for offence under Section 120-B I.P.C. and has been sentenced to Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 4 months Rigorous Imprisonment. All substantive sentences to run concurrently. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that Ramji Lal (PW-3) filed a complaint on 04.02.2013 (Ex.P-7), which was a written report to the Station House Officer, Police Station Phagi, District Jaipur Rural, alleging that on 03.02.2013 at about 02:00 p.m, his nephew Udda @ Udai Singh, left the house after telling that he is going to Devnarayan Maharaj, Village Jodhpuriya, Tehsil Newai, District Tonk. It is mentioned in the First Information Report that at around 6-7 pm, when they tried to contact Udda @ Udai Singh on Mobile No.9680485453, it was found to be out of coverage area. It is also mentioned in the F.I.R. that on 04.02.2013 at around 02:00 pm, the police informed Ramdev (PW-11) that they have found a sim of Mobile No.9680485453 and inquired about the relationship of sim holder with him. Ramdev (PW-11) replied that the mobile sim was with his son Udda @ Udai Singh. Thereupon when he reached near Keriya, the police was bringing dead body of his nephew. There were multiple injuries caused from knife on his face and hands. Ramdev (PW-11) replied that the mobile sim was with his son Udda @ Udai Singh. Thereupon when he reached near Keriya, the police was bringing dead body of his nephew. There were multiple injuries caused from knife on his face and hands. It is further mentioned in the F.I.R. that some unknown persons had killed his nephew and thrown his dead body on Kaccha Path of Kanwarpura. On the basis of the report, the police registered the F.I.R. No.45/2013 at Police Station Phagi, District Jaipur Rural and started investigation. 3. On conclusion of the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against accused-appellants-Ramphool @ Phool Ram @ Foolya and Nirmala @ Dhara for offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B I.P.C. Charges under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B I.P.C. were framed against accused-appellant-Ramphool @ Phool Ram @ Foolya and charge under Section 120-B I.P.C. was framed against accused-appellant-Nirmala @ Dhara. Both the accused-appellants denied charges and claimed trial. On behalf of the prosecution, as many as 23 witnesses & 38 documents were exhibited and 12 articles were produced. The learned Trial Court examined the accused-appellants-Ramphool @ Phool Ram @ Foolya and Nirmala @ Dhara under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein, they denied the allegations and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. In defence, 3 witnesses, namely; Dhannalal Bairwa (D.W-1), Sukhdev (D.W-2) and Kaluram Gurjar (D.W-3) were examined. Police statements Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-5, were got exhibited. After hearing the arguments, learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment found the present accused-appellants guilty and sentenced them as stated herein above. 4. It is contended by counsel for the accused-appellants that the prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence. Prosecution has failed to prove the complete chain of events and circumstances. Accused-appellants are not named in the F.I.R. The learned Trial Judge has relied on the statement of Dev Karan (P.W-6) regarding last seen evidence which is not at all reliable. It is also contended that a false story has been developed regarding love affair between accused-appellant-Ramphool @ Phool Ram @ Foolya and accused-appellant-Nirmala @ Dhara, wife of deceased. No motive for committing the offence is made out. It is also contended that a false story has been developed regarding love affair between accused-appellant-Ramphool @ Phool Ram @ Foolya and accused-appellant-Nirmala @ Dhara, wife of deceased. No motive for committing the offence is made out. Other circumstantial evidence regarding call details between appellant-Ramphool @ Phool Ram @ Foolya and co-accused appellant-Nirmala @ Dhara, cannot be read in evidence, as call details are not supported by any Certificate required under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act and in absence of such Certificate, such call details cannot be taken into consideration while adjudicating the case. 5. It is contended by counsel for the accused-appellants that the recovery of articles cannot be made a ground for conviction, as the blood group was inconclusive. It is also contended that disclosure under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, regarding place of occurrence is not a fact discovered, as the place of occurrence was already known to the police, thus the same is not admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 6. Counsel for the accused-appellants have placed reliance on 'Balwan Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.' (2019) 7 Supreme Court Cases 781 and 'Ramesh Bhai & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan' (Criminal Appeal Nos.868-869 of 2004 decided by Hon'ble Apex Court on 24.04.2009). 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant have opposed these Criminal Appeals. It is contended that the chain is formed. There is recovery of an axe and clothes of accused-appellant-Ramphool @ Phool Ram @ Foolya, both were found to be stained with human blood as evident from the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, which leads to the guilt of the accused-appellant. It is also contended that accused-appellant-Ramphool @ Phool Ram @ Foolya, was having an extra-marital affair with accused-appellant-Nirmala @ Dhara and that was the reason for committing the heinous offence. 8. We have considered the contentions. 9. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness in this case and the case rests upon circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance against accused-appellant-Ramphool @ Phool Ram @ Foolya, is last seen evidence. As per statement of Dev Karan (PW-6), he had seen Udai Singh with accused-appellant-Ramphool @ Phool Ram @ Foolya on a motor-cycle on 03.02.2013 at around 12:00 to 01:00 pm, he has deposed that deceased-Udai Singh is his brother-inlaw's son. The first circumstance against accused-appellant-Ramphool @ Phool Ram @ Foolya, is last seen evidence. As per statement of Dev Karan (PW-6), he had seen Udai Singh with accused-appellant-Ramphool @ Phool Ram @ Foolya on a motor-cycle on 03.02.2013 at around 12:00 to 01:00 pm, he has deposed that deceased-Udai Singh is his brother-inlaw's son. However, Ramji Lal (PW-3), cousin of the deceased-Udai Singh, has stated that on 03.02.2013, Udda @ Udai Singh left the house at around 02:00 pm and when he left the house he said that he is going to Devnarayan Maharaj, Village Jodhpuriya, Tehsil Newai, District Tonk. He left the house on foot, thus the chances of Dev Karan (PW-6), seeing deceased-Udai Singh with accused-appellant-Ramphool between 12:00 to 01:00 pm, becomes doubtful. It is also evident to note that F.I.R. in this case is a written report, wherein it is also mentioned that deceased-Udai Singh, left the house at 02:00 pm. In the F.I.R., it is mentioned that some unidentified persons have murdered Udai Singh. It is also evident that Dev Karan (PW-6) is related to the deceased-Udai Singh. Had he seen Udda @ Udai Singh with accused-appellant-Ramphool, this fact would have surely come in the F.I.R. The F.I.R. in this case was lodged on 04.02.2013 at 04:30 pm and the theory of last seen was first developed on 08.02.2013 by Dev Karan (PW-6), when his statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. No explanation whatsoever has been put-forth, as to why the fact of last seen was not told to the Police at the time when the F.I.R. was lodged and for another four days. The theory of last seen is thus not established. 10. The other circumstance against accused-appellants-Ramphool and Nirmala, is the call details between them. As per prosecution, they were having an extra-marital affair. As far as relationship between deceased-Udda @ Udai Singh and accused-appellant-Nirmala, is concerned, Manraj (PW-13), who is brother of the deceased-Udda @ Udai Singh, has admitted in his cross examination that deceased-Udda @ Udai Singh, was not having any dispute with accused-appellant-Nirmala and both were happily living together. 11. Ramratan (PW-8) has also stated that they were not having any doubt with regard to involvement of accused-appellant-Nirmala in the murder of deceased-Udda @ Udai Singh. The only circumstance which has been made a ground for convicting accused-appellant-Nirmala for offence under Section 120-B I.P.C., is her call details with accused-appellant-Ramphool. 11. Ramratan (PW-8) has also stated that they were not having any doubt with regard to involvement of accused-appellant-Nirmala in the murder of deceased-Udda @ Udai Singh. The only circumstance which has been made a ground for convicting accused-appellant-Nirmala for offence under Section 120-B I.P.C., is her call details with accused-appellant-Ramphool. Call details have been exhibited as Ex.P-30 to Ex.P-32. It is evident that no Certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act has been produced before the learned Court below with regard to the call details. 12. Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:- 'Section 65B. Admissibility of electronic records.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible. (2) The conditions referred to in subsection (1) in respect of a computer output shall be the following, namely:- (a) the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer; (b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities; (c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and (d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities. (3) Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether- (a) by a combination of computers operating over that period; or (b) by different computers operating in succession over that period; or (c) by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or (d) in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers, all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section as constituting a single computer; and references in this section to a computer shall be construed accordingly. (4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say,- (a) identifying the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced; (b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer; (c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub-section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it. (5) For the purposes of this section,- (a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment; (b) whether in the course of activities carried on by any official information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities; (c) a computer output shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section any reference to information being derived from other information shall be a reference to its being derived therefrom by calculation, comparison or any other process.' 13. For producing any electronic document, a Certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, is mandatory. In absence of the Certificate, call details cannot be looked into. For producing any electronic document, a Certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, is mandatory. In absence of the Certificate, call details cannot be looked into. Thus, the only circumstance i.e. the call details, which has been made a ground for convicting accused-appellant-Nirmala, cannot be read in evidence and thus her conviction cannot be upheld. Even for the sake of arguments, if the call details are considered, the same cannot lead to the inference that accused-appellant-Nirmala was having an extra-marital affair with accused-appellant-Ramphool or that she was involved in the commission of the offence. 14. The only evidence now against accused-appellant-Ramphool @ Phool Ram @ Foolya is recovery of an axe and blood stained clothes. As far as report of the F.S.L. is concerned, Gandasa and the shirt which was recovered from accused-appellant-Ramphool @ Phool Ram @ Foolya was found to have human blood but, blood grouping was inconclusive. It is evident that information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was given on 10.02.2013 vide Ex.P-34 at 01:30 pm, whereas, recovery of Gandasa was on the next day vide Ex.P-13 at 10:20 am. The recovery of Gandasa after a delay also cast doubt on the recovery. 15. From perusal of the post-mortem report (Ex.P-17), it is evident that deceased has sustained several incised wounds of different sizes ranging from 4 cm x 2 cm to 11 cm x 2 cm and from 3 cm x 2 cm to 8 cm x 2 cm. All the injuries were bone deep but their sizes vary from 2 cm to 11 cm. The probability of the wounds being caused by an axe is remote. It is also evident that the axe was not put to the doctor to establish that injuries could have been caused by an axe which was recovered from the accused-appellant-Ramphool @ Phool Ram @ Foolya. The blood group being inconclusive, mere recovery of an axe and clothes cannot be made a ground for convicting the accused-appellant-Ramphool. 16. The other circumstance against accused-appellant-Ramphool @ Phool Ram @ Foolya is call details. Since, there is no Certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, the call details also cannot be read in evidence against accused-appellant-Ramphool @ Phool Ram @ Foolya. 17. No chain as such could be connected to come to the conclusion that offence was committed by accused-appellant-Ramphool @ Phool Ram @ Foolya alone. Since, there is no Certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, the call details also cannot be read in evidence against accused-appellant-Ramphool @ Phool Ram @ Foolya. 17. No chain as such could be connected to come to the conclusion that offence was committed by accused-appellant-Ramphool @ Phool Ram @ Foolya alone. As per the defence version, Dhannalal Bairwa (DW-1) has stated that deceased was stuck in the plough and sustained injuries and the tractor driver was trying to get the deceased out of the plough. He has also stated that the tractor driver ran away from the place and they informed the villagers and the police. He has also stated that incident took place in the evening. Kaluram Gurjar (DW-3) has also stated that deceased sustained injuries as he got stuck in the plough and they immediately informed the villagers and the police and all the villagers gathered at the place. The defence version cannot be discarded for the very reason that as per prosecution version, police reached the spot and from there with the aid of the sim contacted relatives of the deceased. 18. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accusedappellants beyond reasonable doubt and the circumstances do not form a complete chain so as to hold the accused-appellants guilty. The learned Trial Court has erred in convicting the accusedappellants. 19. In 'Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra', ( AIR 1984 SC 1622 ), it has been held that onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 20. In view of the above, these Criminal Appeals, therefore, deserve to be and are accordingly, allowed. The judgment and sentence dated 18.05.2017 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur, in Sessions Case No.41/2013 (27/2013), is quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The accused-appellant-Nirmala @ Dhara, in Criminal Appeal No. 1267/2017, is on bail. The bail bonds earlier submitted by the accused-appellant-Nirmala @ Dhara, in Criminal Appeal No. 1267/2017, shall stand cancelled. The other accused-appellant-Ramphool @ Phool Ram @ Foolya, is in custody, he be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case or for any other purpose. 21. Appellants are directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount in accordance with Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. before the Registrar (Judicial) within two weeks from the date of release to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The bail bonds will be effective for a period of six months.