JUDGMENT : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Invoking criminal appellate jurisdiction of this Court, the present Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, 'CrPC') has been preferred by the appellants herein against the Judgment & Order dated 17.11.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District Raigarh in Sessions Case No.29/2015 whereby each of the appellants has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/149, 201/149 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced in the following manner:- Conviction Sentence 1. u/S. 302/149 of IPC. Imprisonment for Life and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer additional R.I. for 1 year. 2. u/S. 201/149 of IPC. R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer additional R.I. for 4 months. 3. u/S. 120B of IPC. Imprisonment for Life and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further R.I. for 1 year. All sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Facts of the case, in brief: 2. All the appellants herein faced criminal trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (in short, ‘Trial Court’) for the charges under Sections 302/149, 201/149 & 120B of IPC on the allegation, as per the prosecution, that on 16.7.2015 at about 10:30 p.m., at Village Bar under Police Station Sariya, District Raigarh, the appellants together, in furtherance of their common object, caused death of Sukhsagar Nayak assaulting him by hammer and also by strangulating him and further with an intention to conceal the evidence, they wrapped the dead-body of Sukhsagar Nayak in a plastic bag and threw it in Mahanadi river in order to screen themselves from legal punishment, thereby they all remained involved in the said criminal conspiracy. A-3 Chandrahas Sidar also was charged for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 (in short, ‘Arms Act’) on the allegation of his unlawfully possessing a country made pistol without a valid licence from the competent authority. 3. The substantial admitted facts in the case which are not in dispute are that the appellants and deceased Sukhsagar all were residents of Village-Bar. A-1 Hetram Nayak and A-2 Janki Nayak are husband and wife. 3. The substantial admitted facts in the case which are not in dispute are that the appellants and deceased Sukhsagar all were residents of Village-Bar. A-1 Hetram Nayak and A-2 Janki Nayak are husband and wife. The deceased Sukhsagar Nayak was the elder brother of Premsagar Nayak (PW-5) and father of Harish Nayak (PW-10). Rest of the facts are disputed being not admitted. 4. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 17.7.2015, the complainant, Premsagar Nayak (PW-5), informed the Police Station Sariya that on 16.7.2015, in the night, his elder brother, Sukhsagar Nayak, had gone to Village-Bar to attend a meeting in respect of consecration ceremony in a temple and he remained present in the said meeting. At about 9:30 p.m., he had a conversation with someone on his phone and then he left out the meeting without informing to anyone and could not be traced out thereafter. 5. On the aforesaid report of Premsagar Nayak (PW-5), a missing person report was registered in the General Diary (Rojnamcha Sanha) of Police Station Sariya as No.10/2015. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, on 19.7.2016, dead-body of Sukhsagar Nayak was found wrapped in a plastic bag at Mohdi Boat-Stand of Mahanadi river in Village Sankra, which was identified by Premsagar Nayak (PW-5) to that of his elder brother, Sukhsagar Nayak. 6. Identification Panchnama was prepared vide Exhibit P-8. Dehati Merg Intimation and Merg Intimation were recorded vide Exhibits P-28 & P-29 respectively. Inquest proceeding was conducted vide Exhibit P-7 and vide Exhibit P-30, an intimation was sent to the Sub Divisional Officer requesting him for conducting of the post-mortem of deceased Sukhsagar Nayak. Thereafter, post-mortem was conducted by Dr. Rajendra Patel (PW-12) vide Exhibit P-10 in which the cause of death of deceased Sukhsagar was opined to be syncope as a result of head injury and the nature of death was homicidal and the duration of death to post-mortem was 48-72 hours. Dehati Nalishi was recorded vide Exhibit P-31. Statements of the witnesses were also recorded during the investigation. 7. Dehati Nalishi was recorded vide Exhibit P-31. Statements of the witnesses were also recorded during the investigation. 7. During the course of investigation, it was discovered that that the deceased Sukhsagar Nayak was having relationship with A-2 Janki Nayak outside of marriage since long and, therefore, in that regard, A-1 Hetram Nayak was interrogated and who revealed that on 16.7.2015 the deceased Sukhsagar Nayak was killed by him with hammer and his dead-body was thrown in Mahanadi river. Accordingly, FIR (Exhibit P-32) was registered against A-1 Hetram Nayak at Police Station Sariya for the offences punishable under Section 302 & 201 of IPC. 8. On further investigation, it also came to fore that Amrawati (PW-7), sister-in-law (Jethani) of A-2 Janki Nayak, at one point of time had seen the deceased Sukhsagar Nayak and A-2 Janki Nayak in compromised position and since then A-2 Janki Nayak was feeling humiliated and trying get rid of Sukhsagar Nayak but he was adamant and wanted to keep his relationship continue with her. A-2 Janki Nayak ultimately informed the said fact to her husband, A-1 Hetram Nayak. They conspired to commit murder of Sukhsagar Nayak and for the said purpose, they also hired A-3 Chandrahas Sidar, A-4 Ashok Yadav and A-5 Ramesh Sarthi, residents of Village-Bar itself. On 16.7.2015, in furtherance of their common object, A-2 Janki Nayak called Sukhsagar Nayak to her house where he was murdered with hammer and thereafter his dead-body was thrown in Mahanadi river, thereby all the appellants conspired together in the commission of the offences in question. Accordingly, Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act were added in the FIR. 9. Sketch Maps of the site where the incident had taken place and also the site where the dead-body of deceased Sukhsagar Nayak was recovered were prepared vide Exhibits P-22 & P-9 respectively. Memorandum statements of A-1 Hetram Nayak, A-2 Janki Nayak, A-3 Chandrahas Sidar, A-4 Ashok Yadav and A-5 Ramesh Sarthi were recorded vide Exhibits P-12, P-13, P-14, P-16 & P-15, respectively. Pursuant to the memorandum statement of A-1 Hetram, one iron hammer and a bloodstained white-green colour shirt were recovered vide Exhibit P-17. Memorandum statements of A-1 Hetram Nayak, A-2 Janki Nayak, A-3 Chandrahas Sidar, A-4 Ashok Yadav and A-5 Ramesh Sarthi were recorded vide Exhibits P-12, P-13, P-14, P-16 & P-15, respectively. Pursuant to the memorandum statement of A-1 Hetram, one iron hammer and a bloodstained white-green colour shirt were recovered vide Exhibit P-17. Similarly, pursuant to the memorandum statement of A-2 Janki Nayak, one mobile phone with SIM No.8085339098, one green colour bed-sheet and one sari said to be worn by her at the time of incident were recovered vide Exhibit P-18. Likewise, pursuant to the memorandum statement of A-3 Chandrahas Sidar, one country made pistol, two 9mm live cartridges and one white colour full shirt were recovered vide Exhibit P-19. Further, pursuant to the memorandum statement of A-5 Ramesh Sarthi, Tractor & Trolley and one whitish full shirt were recovered vide Exhibit P-20. No recovery was made from A-4 Ashok Yadav. Vide Exhibit P-21, from the place of incident i.e., the house of A-1 Hetram Nayak, bloodstained cement boulders, plain cement boulders, bloodstained drawer of the dressing table with red colour handle and bloodstained drawer of the said dressing table without handle were recovered. Vide Exhibit P-34, lungi, baniyan, two slippers, underwear (chhaddi) of deceased Sukhsagar Nayak as well as rope, plastic bag and tooth (plastic), handed over by the doctor in a sealed packet, were also seized. Vide Exhibit P-35, blood sample of Kharari Nayak and Gangamati Nayak, father and mother of the deceased Sukhsagar Nayak, contained in FTA cards were seized in sealed envelope respectively, which were sent for the DNA profiling test along with the seized green colour bed-sheet and two wooden drawers of the dressing table. CDR were received vide Exhibit P-36. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of CrPC. 10. The seized articles were sent for forensic examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur. The F.S.L. report regarding the country made pistol and two live cartridges is Exhibit P-48 in which it has been opined that the seized 9mm pistol (Ex.‘A’) was in working condition and the seized cartridges (Exs. ‘LR1’ & ‘LR2’) both were live cartridges and Ex. LR1 was successfully test fired along with the sample cartridges. The F.S.L. report dated 7.9.2015 regarding the other seized articles though is available on record but it has not been exhibited. ‘LR1’ & ‘LR2’) both were live cartridges and Ex. LR1 was successfully test fired along with the sample cartridges. The F.S.L. report dated 7.9.2015 regarding the other seized articles though is available on record but it has not been exhibited. In the said F.S.L. report, though no blood has been found on the hammer (Ex.'A') recovered pursuant to the memorandum statement of A-1 Hetram Nayak but blood has been found on his shirt (Ex.'D') and on the shirt (Ex.'F') of A-3 Chandrahas Sidar also blood has been found. DNA profiling test report is Exhibit P-50 in which it was concluded that the biological fluid (blood) present on the two wooden drawers of the dressing table with bloodstains of deceased Sukhsagar Nayak was from the biological son of Kharari Nayak and Smt. Gangamati Nayak. 11. The matter was submitted for trial before the Trial Court where the charges framed against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302/149, 201/149 & 120B of IPC were read over and explained to the appellants who abjured their guilt, took a plea of false implication and entreated for trial. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-18 and exhibited 52 documents vide Exhibits P-1 to P-52. Statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. In defence, two witnesses, Jeetram Choudhary and Vidya Sarthi, have been examined as DW-1 & DW-2 respectively and the statement of Ganpati Nayak has been relied upon as Exhibit D-1. 12. After conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court, by impugned judgment and order dated 17.11.2016, on appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, has convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302/149, 201/149 & 120B of IPC and sentenced each of them in the manner as mentioned at the table shown in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the said impugned judgment and order, the present appeal has been filed jointly by the appellants. Submissions of learned Counsel for parties: 13. Questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the said impugned judgment and order, the present appeal has been filed jointly by the appellants. Submissions of learned Counsel for parties: 13. Smt. Indira Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, would submit that the key circumstances culled out by the Trial Court in paragraph-31 of the impugned judgment, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, would show that the circumstances 1, 2 & 3 and circumstances 5 to 7 would be of no use to the prosecution and that the death of deceased Sukhsagar Nayak has been proved to be homicidal in nature and the appellant has been convicted only on the basis of DNA profiling test (Exhibit P-50) in which the blood present on the two wooden drawers of the dressing table with bloodstains of deceased Sukhsagar Nayak was concluded to that of the biological son of Kharari Nayak and Smt. Gangamati Nayak, father and mother of deceased Sukhsagar Nayak. In that view of the matter, all the appellants are entitled for acquittal as only on the basis of scientific evidence, their conviction cannot be sustained. 14. Shri Ankur Kashyap, learned Deputy Government Advocate, per contra, would support the impugned judgment and order and submit that the key circumstances culled out by the Trial Court in paragraph-31 of the impugned judgment would show that the death of deceased Sukhsagar Nayak was homicidal in nature and the motive of the offence has also been found proved and the incriminating circumstances are also well established which would complete the chain of circumstances necessary for five golden principles which constitute panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 . Furthermore, it is corroborated by the scientific evidence of the DNA profiling test (Exhibit P-50). As such, the appellants do not deserve to be acquitted and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Discussion and Analysis: 15. We have heard learned counsel for parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 16. The first question, as to whether the death of deceased Sukhsagar was homicidal in nature, has been answered by the Trial Court in affirmative relying upon the statement of Dr. Discussion and Analysis: 15. We have heard learned counsel for parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 16. The first question, as to whether the death of deceased Sukhsagar was homicidal in nature, has been answered by the Trial Court in affirmative relying upon the statement of Dr. Rajendra Patel (PW-12) who has conducted the post-mortem and proved the post- mortem report (Exhibit P-10) in which the cause of death of deceased Sukhsagar Nayak has been opined to be syncope as a result of head injury and the nature of death has been stated to be homicidal, which, in our considered opinion, is correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. We, accordingly, affirm the said finding of the Trial Court, holding that the death of deceased Sukhsagar Nayak was homicidal in nature. 17. It is not the case of direct evidence. It is based on circumstantial evidence. We, accordingly, affirm the said finding of the Trial Court, holding that the death of deceased Sukhsagar Nayak was homicidal in nature. 17. It is not the case of direct evidence. It is based on circumstantial evidence. The Trial Court to base the conviction of the appellants has culled out following incriminating circumstances in paragraph-31 of the impugned judgment:- ¼1½ e`rd lq[klkxj uk;d dk vkjksfi;k tkudh uk;d ds lkFk voS/k laca/k gksdj foxr 8&10 o"kksZa ls 'kkfjfjd laca/k cukrs pyk vk jgk FkkA ¼2½ fnukad 16-07-2015 dh jkf= esa xzke&ckj ds efUnj ds izk.k izfr"Bk gsrq ehfVax esa e`rd lq[klkxj uk;d dh mifLFfr rFkk ehfVax ds nkSjku mlds ikl eksckby Qksu vkuk rFkk ehfVax lekIr gksus ds ckn pys tkuk] rc ls e`rd lq[klkxj uk;d dk irk ugha pyuk ;k xqe gks tkukA ¼3½ fnukad 19-7-2015 dks egkunh esa xkze&jScks ,oa xzke&eksgnh ds chp ,d vKkr 'ko dk cjken gksuk rFkk vKkr 'ko dh f'kuk[rh e`rd lq[klkxj uk;d ds :Ik esa fd;k tkukA ¼4½ e`rd lq[klkxj uk;d dh e`R;q dh izd`fr gR;kRed gksukA ¼5½ vkjksih gsrjke ,oa vkjksih v'kksd ;kno ds }kjk iqfyl vfHkj{kk esa crk;s x;s eseksjs.Me dFku ds vk/kkj ij ,d ux gFkkSM+k rFkk [kwu dk /kCck yxk gqvk 'kVZ dh cjkenxh fd;k tkuk] vkjksfi;k tkudh uk;d ds }kjk iqfyl vfHkj{kk esa crk;s x;s eseksjs.Me dFku ds vk/kkj ij ,d ux eksckbZy uksfd;k dEiuh ftl ij 8085339098 uEcj dk lhe yxk gksuk rFkk ,d ux lkM+h rFkk pknj dh cjkenxh fd;k tkuk] vkjksih jes'k lkjFkh ds }kjk iqfyl vfHkj{kk esa crk;s x;s eseksjs.Me dFku ds vk/kkj ij VSªDVj ,oa Vªkyh rFkk ,d 'kVZ dh cjkenxh fd;k tkuk rFkk vjksih panzgkl flnkj ds }kjk vkjksih gsrjke uk;d ds e`rd lq[klkxj uk;d dh gR;k djus dk vkijkf/kd "kM+;a= ds vxzlj.k esa ns'kh fiLrkSy rFkk nks ux dkjrwl rFkk mlls 'kVZ dh tIrh mlds iqfyl vfHkj{kk esa crk;s x;s eseksjs.Me dFku ds vk/kkj ij tIr gksukA ¼6½ ?kVukLFky ls [kwu vkywnk feV~Vh rFkk Msªflax Vscy dk njkt ftlesa [kwu ds NhaVs yxk gqvk tIr gksukA ¼7½ ?kVukLFky ls tIr lkexzh rFkk vkjksihx.k ls tIr 'kVZ ,oa gFkkSM+k esa [kwu dh ekStwnxhA ¼8½ ?kVukLFky ls tIr [kwu ds NhaVs yxs gq;s Msªflax Vscy ij ekStwn jDr rFkk e`rd lq[klkxj uk;d ds ekrk firk ls fy;s x;s jDr lsEiy ds Mh0,u0,0 VsLV djk;s tkus ij Mh0,u0,0 izksQkbZfyax fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj jDr dk feyku gksukA 18. Now, we will consider the aforesaid incriminating circumstances culled out by the Trial Court, one by one. Incriminating Circumstance No.1: 19. The first incriminating circumstance which the Trial Court has found proved is that the deceased Sukhsagar Nayak had relationship with A-2 Janki Nayak outside of marriage and at one point of time, her sister-in-law, Amrawati (PW-7) had seen the deceased Sukhsagar Nayak with A-2 Janki Nayak in compromise position because of which A-2 Janki Nayak was feeling humiliated and trying to close her relationship with the deceased Sukhsagar Nayak but since he wanted to continue his relationship with A-2 Janki Nayak, she informed the said fact to her husband, A-1 Hetram Nayak, and then both of them conspired to eliminate the deceased Sukhsagar Nayak with the help of A-3 Chandras Sidar, A-4 Ashok Yadav and A-5 Ramesh Sarthi and on 16.7.2015, in furtherance of their common object, they killed him with hammer and thereafter threw his dead-body in Mahanadi river. However, though Amrawati (PW-7) had stated in her statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC that the deceased Sukhsagar Nayak had relationship with A-2 Janki Nayak but in her statement made before the Court, she has completely turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution and on a leading question being put to her, she did not tell anything about the said fact that the deceased Sukhsagar Nayak had relationship with A-2 Janki Nayak outside of marriage. However, Murarilal Nayak (PW-13) has stated in his examination-in-chief that the deceased Sukhsagar Nayak was his friend and he had informed him that he had relationship with A-2 Janki Nayak from 8-10 years but in paragraph-24 of his cross-examination, he has clearly stated that he has no personal knowledge about the relationship of deceased Sukhsagar Nayak with A-2 Janki Nayak. As such, there is no legal evidence on record to hold that there was motive on the part of A-2 Janki Nayak to commit the offences in question. Even otherwise, though motive may be a relevant fact in assessing the circumstantial evidence but it cannot be made basis for conviction. Incriminating Circumstances No.2 & 3: 20. As such, there is no legal evidence on record to hold that there was motive on the part of A-2 Janki Nayak to commit the offences in question. Even otherwise, though motive may be a relevant fact in assessing the circumstantial evidence but it cannot be made basis for conviction. Incriminating Circumstances No.2 & 3: 20. With regard to these incriminating circumstances, it is the case of the prosecution that on 16.7.2015, in the night at about 8-8:30 p.m., a meeting was convened in respect of consecration ceremony in a temple at Village-Bar, the deceased had participated in the said meeting and thereafter on 19.7.2015, his dead-body was found which was identified by Premsagar Nayak (PW-5). However, Ganpati Nayak (PW-6) has stated that in the said meeting, he was also one of the participants including the deceased Sukhsagar Nayak, Dasrath Nayak, Raj Kumar Nayak and some other persons of the village. During the meeting, at about 9:30 p.m., the deceased Sukhsagar Nayak received a phone call and left out the meeting for attending the said phone call and he again attended the meeting after 4-5 minutes and then after the meeting was over, all the attendees moved out to their respective house. Thereafter, on 17.7.2015, Premsagar Nayak (PW-5), lodged a missing report in respect of Sukhsagar Nayak and subsequently dead-body of Sukhsagar Nayak was recovered on 19.7.2015 at 10:00 a.m by Kartik Dehari (PW-3) who informed the police and the dead-body of Sukhsagar Nayak was identified by his younger brother Premsagar Nayak (PW-5) and thereafter it was subjected to post-mortem and necessary formalities were completed. However, it is not the case of the prosecution that any of the appellants along with the deceased Sukhsagar Nayak was seen together in the night of 16.7.2015 during the meeting or after the meeting was over and even it has not been suggested remotely that any of the appellants had left out the meeting immediately after completion of the meeting and more particularly the dead-body of deceased Sukhsagar Nayak was recovered after a period of three days in Mohadi Boat Stand of Mahanadi River between Village Raibo and Village Mohadi and which was identified as dead-body of Sukhsagar Nayak. Thus, the theory of last-seen-together is not at all established and even it has not been projected by the prosecution as one of the incriminating circumstances that any of the appellants more particularly A-1 Hetram Nayak was seen along with the deceased Sukhsagar Nayak during the meeting or after the meeting and they had left out together and even otherwise, the dead-body of deceased Sukhsagar Nayak was found after more than 40 hours. As such, it cannot be held that it is the appellants who are perpetrators in absence of corroboration, as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Navaneethakrishna v. State by Inspector of Police, (2018) 16 SCC 161 . Incriminating Circumstance No.4: 21. The incriminating circumstance that the death of deceased Sukhsagar Nayak was homicidal in nature, has already been affirmed by us in the preceding paragraph of this judgment. We hereby again uphold the said finding of the Trial Court that the death of deceased Sukhsagar Nayak was homicidal in nature and it is correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record. Incriminating Circumstances No.5 & 7: 22. Now, in respect of these incriminating circumstances that have been brought out by the prosecution that pursuant to the memorandum statement of A-1 Hetram Nayak, an iron hammer and a bloodstained shirt were seized, but, surprisingly, in the F.S.L. report dated 7.5.2015 (not exhibited), no blood has been found on the hammer (Ex.'A') and though blood was found on his shirt (Ex.'D') but the blood-group could not be ascertained and, therefore, in absence of human blood on the said seized article, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Balwan Singh v. State of Chhattisgargh, (2019) 7 SCC 781 , recovery of the such article would be of no use to the prosecution. Furthermore, pursuant to the memorandum statement of A-2 Janki Nayak, one Nokia mobile phone with SIM No.8085339098 and one sari were recovered and pursuant to the memorandum statement of A-5 Ramesh Sarthi, Tractor & Trolley and one shirt were seized. However, in absence of blood and/or human blood found on the said seized articles in the F.S.L. report, in view of Balwan Singh (supra), recovery of the said articles would be of no use to the prosecution. However, in absence of blood and/or human blood found on the said seized articles in the F.S.L. report, in view of Balwan Singh (supra), recovery of the said articles would be of no use to the prosecution. With regard to the recovery of one country made pistol and two live cartridges pursuant to the memorandum statement of A-3 Chandrahas Sidar, the F.S.L. report (Exhibit P-48) has been brought on record and in which though it has been opined that the seized 9mm pistol (Ex.‘A’) was in working condition and the seized cartridges (Exs. ‘LR1’ & ‘LR2’) both were live cartridges and were successfully test fired but no gun-shot injury has been found on the body of the deceased Sukhsagar Nayak as is evident from his post-mortem report, as such, recovery of the said articles also would not come to the support of the prosecution. Though in the F.S.L. report dated 7.5.2015 (not exhibited), blood has been found on the shirt (Ex.'F') recovered pursuant to the memorandum statement of A-3 Chandrahas Sidar but as held above, in absence of blood/human blood on the said seized article, its recovery would be inconsequential in view of Balwan Singh (supra). Apart from that, the bloodstained bed-sheet recovered pursuant to the memorandum statement of A-2 Janki Nayak was subjected to DNA profiling test report and vide Exhibit P-50 it has been concluded that blood on the said bed-sheet was not of the deceased. Incriminating Circumstances No.6 & 8: 23. With respect to these incriminating circumstances, the Trial Court has made great emphasis on the two bloodstained drawers of the dressing table recovered. The said drawers of the dressing table were seized vide Exhibit P-21 on 19.7.2015 at 4:55 p.m. from the place of incident i.e. from the house of A-1 Hetram Nayak at Village-Bar. Thereafter, on 19.9.2015, vide Exhibit P-35, blood samples of Kharari Nayak and Gangamati Nayak, father and mother of the deceased respectively, were taken in FTA cards for the purpose of DNA profiling test. On 19.9.2015, vide Exhibit P-47, the bloodstains bed-sheet (Ex. ‘A’) seized pursuant to the memorandum statement of A-2 Janki Nayak and the two bloodstained wooden drawers of the dressing table (Ex. ‘B’) seized from the place of incident, along with the blood sample of Kharari Nayak (Ex. ‘C’) and the blood sample of Gangamati Nayak (Ex. On 19.9.2015, vide Exhibit P-47, the bloodstains bed-sheet (Ex. ‘A’) seized pursuant to the memorandum statement of A-2 Janki Nayak and the two bloodstained wooden drawers of the dressing table (Ex. ‘B’) seized from the place of incident, along with the blood sample of Kharari Nayak (Ex. ‘C’) and the blood sample of Gangamati Nayak (Ex. ‘D’) were sent by the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh for DNA profiling test to the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD), Hyderabad on 19.9.2015. The DNA profiling test report, dated 8.1.2016, received from CDFD, Hyderabad is Exhibit P-50, the contents of which are being reproduced herein below for ready reference:- Name of the source Received/ Collected on Exhibit Exhibit code Green colour bed sheet with bloodstains said to be of deceased Sukhsagar Nayak 21-09-2015 A Y1184CL1 Two wooden drawers of dressing table with bloodstains said to be of deceased Sukhsagar Nayak 21-09-2015 B Y1184ART1 Stained FTA Card said to be of Shri Kharari Nayak Identification Form No.1 21-09-2015 C Y1184BS1 Stained FTA Card said to be of Smt. Gangamati. Identification Form No.2 21-09-2015 D Y1184BS2 ***** Results of Examination The source of exhibit B (the wooden drawers of dressing table with bloodstains said to be of deceased Sukhsagar Nayak) yielded DNA profile of male origin and is matching with the DNA profiles of the sources of exhibit C (bloodstains said to be of Shri Kharari Nayak) and Exhibit D (bloodstains said to be of Smt. Gangamati). The paternal and maternal alleles present in the DNA profile of the source of exhibit B are accounted for being present in DNA profiles of the sources of exhibits C and D respectively. The source of exhibit A (green colour bed sheet with bloodstains said to be of deceased Sukhsagar Nayak) yielded DNA profile of male origin and is not matching with the DNA profiles of the sources of exhibit B (two wooden drawers of dressing table with bloodstains said to be of deceased Sukhsagar Nayak), exhibit C (bloodstains said to be of Shri Kharari Nayak) and exhibit D (bloodstains said to be of Smt. Gangamati), as shown in the enclosed Table. Conclusion The DNA test performed on the exhibits provided is sufficient to conclude that : 1. Conclusion The DNA test performed on the exhibits provided is sufficient to conclude that : 1. The biological fluid (blood) present on the source of exhibit B (two wooden drawers of dressing table with bloodstains of deceased Sukhsagar Nayak) is from the biological son of the sources of exhibit C (Shri Kharari Nayak) and exhibit D (Smt. Gangamati). 2. The biological fluid (blood) present on the source of exhibit A (green colour bed sheet with bloodstains said to be of deceased Sukhsagar Nayak) is not from the biological son of the sources of exhibit C (Shri Kharari Nayak) and exhibit D (Smt. Gangamati). 3. The biological fluid (blood) present on the source of exhibit A (green colour bed sheet with bloodstains said to be of deceased Sukhsagar Nayak) and the source of exhibit B (two wooden drawers of dressing table with bloodstains of deceased Sukhsagar Nayak) are not from the same individual. 24. Relying upon the aforesaid DNA profiling test (Exhibit P-50) in which it was concluded that the biological fluid (blood) present on the two wooden drawers of the dressing table with bloodstains of deceased Sukhsagar Nayak was from the biological son of Kharari Nayak and Smt. Gangamati Nayak, the Trial Court proceeded to convict the appellants for the offences in question. However, from the records, it is quite vivid that the two wooden drawers of the dressing table were seized on 19.7.2015 vide Exhibit P-21 and sent for DNA profiling test along with the blood samples of the father and mother of deceased Sukhsagar Nayak after a period of two months i.e. on 19.9.2015 vide Exhibit P-47. Thus, there is a delay of two months in sending the samples for DNA profiling test to the CDFD, Hyderabad. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that since there was a delay of two months in sending the said samples for the DNA profiling test, therefore, on the basis of said DNA profiling test, it would be unsafe to convict the appellants for the offences in question. 25. In the recent past, in the matter of Manoj & Ors. 25. In the recent past, in the matter of Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353 : 2002 SCC Online SC 677, their Lordships of the Supreme Court while highlighting the need to ensure quality testing and lesser possibility of tempering of evidence has elaborately discussed the evidentiary value of the DNA report and laid down the law with regard to DNA Profiling Methodology, Statistical Analysis and Collection & Preservation of Evidence and held in paragraphs151 to 158 as under:- “151. During the hearing, an article published by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata [DNA Profiling in Justice Delivery System, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Directorate of Forensic Science, Kolkata (2007).] was relied upon. The relevant extracts of the article are reproduced below: "Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA} is genetic material present in the nuclei of cells of living organisms. An average human body is composed of about 100 trillion of cells. DNA is present in the nucleus of cell as double helix, supercoiled to form chromosomes along with Intercalated proteins. Twenty- three pairs of chromosomes present In each nucleated cells and an individual Inherits 23 chromosomes from mother and 23 from father transmitted through the ova and sperm respectively. At the time of each cell division, chromosomes replicate and one set goes to each daughter cell. All Information about Internal organisation, physical characteristics, and physiological functions of the body is encoded in DNA molecules in a language (sequence) of alphabets of four nucleotides or bases: Adenine (A), Guanine (G}, Thymine (T} and Cytosine (C) along with sugar- phosphate backbone. A human haploid cell contains 3 billion bases approx. All cells of the body have exactly same DNA but it varies from individual to Individual in the sequence of nucleotides. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA} found in large number of copies in the mitochondria is circular, double stranded, 16,569 base pair in length and shows maternal inheritance. It is particularly useful in the study of people related through the maternal line. Also being in large number of copies than nuclear DNA, it can be used in the analysis of degraded samples. Similarly, the Y chromosome shows paternal inheritance and is employed to trace the male lineage and resolve DNA from males in sexual assault mixtures. Only 0.1 % of DNA (about 3 million bases} differs from one person to another. Also being in large number of copies than nuclear DNA, it can be used in the analysis of degraded samples. Similarly, the Y chromosome shows paternal inheritance and is employed to trace the male lineage and resolve DNA from males in sexual assault mixtures. Only 0.1 % of DNA (about 3 million bases} differs from one person to another. Forensic DNA Scientists analyse only few variable regions to generate a DNA profile of an individual to compare with biological clue materials or control samples. .............................................… DNA Profiling Methodology DNA profile is generated from the body fluids, stains, and other biological specimen recovered from evidence and the results are compared with the results obtained from reference samples. Thus, a link among victim(s) and/or suspect(s) with one another or with crime scene can be established. DNA Profiling Is a complex process of analyses of some highly variable regions of DNA. The variable areas of DNA are termed Genetic Markers. The current genetic markers of choice for forensic purposes are Short Tandem Repeats (STRs). Analysis of a set of 15 STRs employing Automated DNA Sequencer gives a DNA Profile unique to an Individual (except monozygotic twin). Similarly, STRs present on Y chromosome (Y-STR) can also be used in sexual assault cases or determining paternal lineage. In cases of sexual assaults, Y-STRs are helpful in detection of male profile even in the presence of high level of female portion or in case of azoo11permic or vasectomized" male. Cases In which DNA had undergone 40 DNA profiling in Justice Delivery System, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Directorate of Forensic Science, Kolkata (2007). environmental stress and biochemical degradation, min lSTRs can be used for over routine STR because of shorter amplicon size. DNA Profiling is a complicated process and each sequential step involved in generating a profile can vary depending on the facilities available In the laboratory. The analysis principles, however, remain similar, which include: 1. isolation, purification & quantitation of DNA 2. amplification of selected genetic markers 3. visualising the fragments and genotyping 4. statistical analysis & interpretation. In mt DNA analysis, variations in Hypervariable Region I & II (HVR I & II) are detected by sequencing and comparing results with control samples: Statistical Analysis Atypical DNA case involves comparison of evidence samples, such as semen from a rape, and known or reference samples, such as a blood sample from a suspect. statistical analysis & interpretation. In mt DNA analysis, variations in Hypervariable Region I & II (HVR I & II) are detected by sequencing and comparing results with control samples: Statistical Analysis Atypical DNA case involves comparison of evidence samples, such as semen from a rape, and known or reference samples, such as a blood sample from a suspect. Generally, there are three possible outcomes of profile comparison: 1) Match: If the DNA profiles obtained from the two samples are indistinguishable, they are said to have matched. 2) Exclusion: If the comparison of profiles shows differences, it can only be explained by the two samples originating from different sources. 3) Inconclusive: The data does not support a conclusion Of the three possible outcomes, only the "match" between samples needs to be supported by statistical calculation. Statistics attempt to provide meaning to the match. The match statistics are usually provided as an estimate of the Random Match Probability (RMP) or in other words, the frequency of the particular DNA profile in a population. In case of paternity/maternity testing, exclusion at more than two loci is considered exclusion. An allowance of 1 or 2 loci possible mutations should be taken Into consideration while reporting a match. Paternity of Maternity Indices and Likelihood Ratios are calculated further to support the match. Collection and Preservation of Evidence If DNA evidence is not properly documented, collected, packaged, and preserved, It will not meet the legal and scientific requirements for admissibility in. a court of law. Because extremely small samples of DNA can be used as evidence, greater attention to contamination issues is necessary while locating, collecting, and preserving DNA evidence can be contaminated when DNA from another source gets mixed with DNA relevant to the case. This can happen when someone sneezes or coughs over the evidence or touches his/her mouth, nose, or other part of the face and then touches area that may contain the DNA to be tested. The exhibits having biological specimen, which can establish link among victim(s), suspect(s), scene of crime for solving the case should be Identified, preserved, packed and sent for DNA Profiling. 152. The exhibits having biological specimen, which can establish link among victim(s), suspect(s), scene of crime for solving the case should be Identified, preserved, packed and sent for DNA Profiling. 152. In an earlier judgment, R v. Dohoney & Adams, (1997) 1 Crl App Rep 369 (CA), the UK Court of Appeal laid down the following guidelines concerning the procedure for introducing DNA evidence in trials: (1) the scientist should adduce the evidence of the DNA 41 1997 (1) Crl App Rep 369 comparisons together with his calculations of the random occurrence ratio; (2) whenever such evidence is to be adduced, the Crown (prosecution) should serve upon the defence details as to how the calculations have been carried out, which are sufficient for the defence to scrutinise the basis of the calculations; (3) the Forensic Science Service should make available to a defence expert, if requested, the databases upon which the calculations have been based. 153. The Law Commission of India in its 185th Report on Review of the Indian Evidence Act, 2003, observed as follows: "DNA evidence involves comparison between genetic material thought to come from the person whose identity is in issue and a sample of genetic material from a known person. If the samples do not 'match', then this will prove a lack of identity between the known person and the person from whom the unknown sample originated. If the samples match, that does not mean the identity is conclusively proved. Rather, an expert will be able to derive from a database of DNA samples, an approximate number reflecting how often a similar DNA "profile" or "fingerprint" is found. It may be, for example, that the relevant profile is found in 1 person in every 100,000: This is described as the 'random occurrence ratio' (Phipson 1999). Thus, DNA may be more useful for purposes of investigation but not for raising any presumption of identity in a court of law." 154. In Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of UP, (2014) 5 SCC 509 this Court discussed the reliability of DNA evidence in a criminal trial, and held as follows: "36. The DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid, which is the biological blueprint of every life. In Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of UP, (2014) 5 SCC 509 this Court discussed the reliability of DNA evidence in a criminal trial, and held as follows: "36. The DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid, which is the biological blueprint of every life. DNA is made-up of a double standard structure consisting of a deoxyribose sugar and phosphate backbone, cross-linked with two types of nucleic acids referred to as adenine and guanine, purines and thymine and cytosine pyrimidines.....DNA usually can be obtained from any biological material such as blood, semen, saliva, hair, skin, bones, etc. The question as to whether DNA tests are virtually infallible may be a moot question, but the fact remains that such test has come to stay and is being used extensively in the investigation of crimes and the Court often accepts the views of the experts, especially when cases rest on circumstantial evidence. More than half a century, samples of human DNA began to be used in the criminal justice system. Of course, debate lingers over the safeguards that should be required in testing samples and in presenting the evidence in Court. DNA profile, however, is consistently held to be valid and reliable, but of course, it depends on the quality control and quality assurance procedures in the laboratory." 42 185th Report, on Review of the Indian Evidence Act, 2003 43 (2015) 5 SCC 509. 155. The US Supreme Court, in District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne (supra) dealt with a post- conviction claim to access evidence, at the behest of the convict, who wished to prove his innocence, through new DNA techniques. It was observed, in the context of the facts, that "Modern DNA testing can provide powerful new evidence unlike anything known before. Since its first use in criminal investigations in the mid-1980s, there have been several major advances in DNA technology, culminating in STR technology. It is now often possible to determine whether a biological tissue matches a suspect with near certainty. While of course many criminal trials proceed without any forensic and scientific testing at all, there is no technology comparable to DNA testing for matching tissues when such evidence is at issue. DNA testing has exonerated wrongly convicted people, and has confirmed the convictions of many others." 156. While of course many criminal trials proceed without any forensic and scientific testing at all, there is no technology comparable to DNA testing for matching tissues when such evidence is at issue. DNA testing has exonerated wrongly convicted people, and has confirmed the convictions of many others." 156. Several decisions of this Court - Pantangi Balarama Venkata Ganesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2009) 14 SCC 607 ; Santosh Kumar Singh v. State; (2010) 9 SCC 747 ; State of Tamil Nadu v. John David, (2011) 5 SCC 509 ; Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana; (2011) 7 SCC 130 ; Surendra Koli v. State of Uttar Pradesh; (2011) 4 SCC 80 ; Sandeep v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 6 SCC 107 ; Rajkumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2014) 5 SCC 353 ; and Mukesh (supra) have dealt with the increasing importance of DNA evidence. This court has also emphasized the need for assuring quality control, about the samples, as well as the technique for testing- in Anil v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 4 SCC 69 : "18. Deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, is a molecule that encodes the genetic information in all living organisms. DNA genotype can be obtained from any biological material such as bone, blood, semen, saliva, hair, skin, etc. Now, for several years, DNA profile has also shown a tremendous impact on forensic investigation. Generally, when DNA profile of a sample found at the scene of crime matches with DNA profile of the suspect, it can generally be concluded that both samples have the same biological origin. DNA profile is valid and reliable, but variance in a particular result depends on the quality control and quality procedure in the laboratory." 157. This court, in one of its recent decisions- Pattu Rajan v. The State of Tamil Nadu, considered the value and weight to be attached to a DNA report: "52. Like all other opinion evidence, the probative value accorded to DNA evidence also varies from case to case, depending on facts and circumstances and the weight accorded to other evidence on record, whether contrary or corroborative. Like all other opinion evidence, the probative value accorded to DNA evidence also varies from case to case, depending on facts and circumstances and the weight accorded to other evidence on record, whether contrary or corroborative. This is all the more important to remember, given that even though the accuracy of DNA evidence may be increasing with the advancement of science and technology with every passing day, thereby making it more and more reliable, we have not yet reached a juncture where it may be said to be infallible. Thus, it cannot be said that the absence of DNA evidence would lead to an adverse inference against a party, especially in the presence of other cogent and reliable evidence on record in favour of such party." 158. This court, therefore, has relied on DNA reports, in the past, where the guilt of an accused was sought to be established. Notably, the reliance, was to corroborate. This court highlighted the need to ensure quality in the testing and eliminate the possibility of contamination of evidence; it also held that being an opinion, the probative value of such evidence has to vary from case to case.” 26. Very recently, in the matter of Rahul v. State of Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr., (2023) 1 SCC 83 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court (three-Judges Bench), while considering the evidentiary value of DNA evidence and taking note of decision of Manoj (supra) held that the DNA evidence is in the nature of opinion evidence like any other opinion evidence, its probative value varies from case to case and held in Para-38 as under:- “38. It is true that PW 23 Dr B.K. Mohapatra, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) of CFSL, New Delhi had stepped into the witness box and his report regarding DNA profiling was exhibited as Ext. PW 23/A, however mere exhibiting a document, would not prove its contents. The record shows that all the samples relating to the accused and relating to the deceased were seized by the investigating officer on 14.02.2012 and 16.02.2012; and they were sent to CFSL for examination on 27.02.2012. During the period, they remained in the malkhana of the police station. Under the circumstances, the possibility of tampering with the samples collected also could not be ruled out. During the period, they remained in the malkhana of the police station. Under the circumstances, the possibility of tampering with the samples collected also could not be ruled out. Neither the trial Court nor the High Court has examined the underlying basis of the findings in the DNA reports nor have they examined the fact whether the techniques were reliably applied by the expert. In the absence of such evidence on record, all the reports with regard to DNA profiling become highly vulnerable, more particularly when the collection and sealing of the samples sent for examination were also not free from suspicion.” 27. In view of aforesaid legal position qua DNA profiling report and its probative value, the prosecution is duty bound to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and burden is always upon the prosecution to lead evidence by taking all the precautions for proving DNA evidence. It is necessary for the prosecution as the entire process of collecting the blood samples for DNA profiling is controlled and done by the human agencies i.e. doctors and the investigating officers. Every step to preserve the sample from manipulation/contamination has to be proved, as absence of those steps may cause prejudice to the accused. The prosecution is required to put all the positive evidence regarding the fact that all the precautions have been taken by the doctors as well as by the police officials regarding the preservation of the DNA samples. As held in the matter of Pattu Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2019) 4 SCC 771 , DNA report is “an opinion” and its probative value varies from case to case. The science of DNA is at a developing stage, as such, it will be risky to solely rely upon the DNA report in absence of any substantive piece of evidence. 28. In the matter of Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 526 , the Supreme Court has held that if there exists a suspicious delay in sending the sealed parcel to the expert, the result is vitiated. 29. Similarly, in the matter of Amarjit Singh alias Babbu v. State of Punjab, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 217, the Supreme Court has held that non-sealing of the revolver at the spot was a serious infirmity as the possibility of tampering could not be ruled out and observed in paragraph 7 as under:- “7. 29. Similarly, in the matter of Amarjit Singh alias Babbu v. State of Punjab, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 217, the Supreme Court has held that non-sealing of the revolver at the spot was a serious infirmity as the possibility of tampering could not be ruled out and observed in paragraph 7 as under:- “7. The entire prosecution case, thus, is clouded with number of infirmities which compel this Court not to accept such an unworthy evidence. These infirmities have been brushed aside by the Designated Court by observing that since the model number of the revolver was noted down, the non-sealing of the revolver or the handing over of the same to some other police official or a private person, who has not been examined are of no consequence. We are unable to agree and subscribe to this view in a case of this nature. The non-sealing of the revolver at the spot is a serious infirmity because the possibility of tampering with the weapon cannot be ruled out. The report of PW 4 that the weapon is capable of being fired is insignificant since it cannot be said with certainty as to what was the condition of the weapon at the time of the recovery, apart from the evidence of PW 4 that he did not test-fire the revolver.” 30. Thereafter, in the matter of Mahmood v. State of U.P., (1976) 1 SCC 542 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have emphasized the need for fair and cautious investigation by holding that there should be fair and cautious investigation and Investigating Officer should rule out possibility of fabrication and his conduct should dispel suspicion. It has been observed in paragraphs 15 & 18 of the report as under: - “15. Further, the investigator did not take all the necessary precautions which could be taken to eliminate the possibility of fabrication of this evidence, or to dispel suspicion as to its genuineness. Admittedly, he sealed the box with his own seal which thereafter remained with him throughout. He did not take the signatures of the witnesses on the parcel containing the gandasa. He did not after sealing the parcel entrust his seal to the Sarpanch or any other respectable person of the village. Admittedly, he sealed the box with his own seal which thereafter remained with him throughout. He did not take the signatures of the witnesses on the parcel containing the gandasa. He did not after sealing the parcel entrust his seal to the Sarpanch or any other respectable person of the village. According to the prosecution the fingerprints found on the gandasa could possibly be blood prints and that the blade of the gandasa was all smeared with human blood. But this gandasa was never sent to the Chemical Examiner or the Serologist. No explanation of the same is forthcoming. This being the case, the contention of Mr. R.K. Garg at the Bar, that the gandasa, Ex. 1, or smear of the alleged blood on it was not sent to the Chemical Examiner for fear of the fabrication being detected and exposed, cannot be rejected outright. 18. Secondly, even if it is assumed that the handle of this gandasa bore the fingerprints of the appellant, then also it would not inexorably and unmistakably lead to the conclusion that the appellant, and none else was the murderer of Dwarka, unless it was firmly proved further that the fatal injury to the deceased was caused with this weapon. Definite proof of this link was lacking in this case. The missing link could be best supplied by showing that there was blood on this gandasa, and that blood was of human origin. But this was not done.” 31. A Division of the M.P. High Court in the matter of Vijay Singh v. State of M.P., (2004) 4 MPLJ 543 held that there is no explanation regarding the period of ten days during which articles were available with the prosecution and due to lack of evidence regarding sealing of the articles in a proper manner and its identification, the seizure of material and consequential report regarding the said article/material cannot be believed. 32. Very recently also in the matter of Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal Nos.1636-1637 of 2023 decided on 19.5.2023. their Lordships of the Supreme Court have considered the question as to whether DNA evidence can form the solitary basis in determining the guilt of the accused and relying upon the decision in the matters of Manoj (supra) and Raju (supra) held in para-66 as under:- "66. their Lordships of the Supreme Court have considered the question as to whether DNA evidence can form the solitary basis in determining the guilt of the accused and relying upon the decision in the matters of Manoj (supra) and Raju (supra) held in para-66 as under:- "66. In the present case, even though, the DNA evidence by way of a report was present, its reliability is not infallible, especially not so in light of the fact that the uncompromised nature of such evidence cannot be established; and other that cogent evidence as can be seen from our discussion above, is absent almost in its entirety." 33. Reverting to the facts of the case, in light of the principles of law laid down in the afore-stated decisions of the Supreme Court, it is quite established that the two wooden drawers of the dressing table were seized on 19.7.2015 and they were sent for DNA profiling test on 19.9.2015 and there is no evidence on record as to from where they were seized and sealed and where were they lying for a period of two months and were they kept in a proper custody to dispel any suspicion and as to why they were not sent for DNA profiling test immediately after their seizure. Even no Malkhana register indicating that they were kept in a safe custody has been filed. As such, the prosecution has been failed to establish that proper procedure which are required to be followed for DNA profiling test of the said articles and the proper procedure with regard to the collection of blood samples of the father and mother of deceased Sukhsagar Nayak was also not followed. Therefore, the DNA profiling test report comes under the cloud of suspicion and in absence of any corroborative piece on record, it would be unsafe to convict the appellants relying upon the said DNA profiling test report (Exhibit P-50) and the Trial Court is absolutely unjustified to convict the appellants for the offences in question on the basis of the said DNA profiling test report. In that view of the matter, all the appellants herein are entitled to be acquitted from the offences punishable under Sections 302/149, 201/149 & 120B of IPC on the basis of benefit of doubt and it is accordingly held so. Conclusion: 34. In that view of the matter, all the appellants herein are entitled to be acquitted from the offences punishable under Sections 302/149, 201/149 & 120B of IPC on the basis of benefit of doubt and it is accordingly held so. Conclusion: 34. In conclusion, the conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302/149, 201/ 149 & 120B of IPC is set-aside and they are acquitted of the said charges. A-1 Hetram Nayak is reported to be in jail since 19.7.2015. We therefore direct that he be released from jail forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other offence. A-2 Janki Nayak, A-3 Chandrahas Sidar, A-4 Ashok Yadav and A-5 Ramesh Sarthi are already on bail since 3.5.2017. They need not surrender but their bail- bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437A of CrPC. 35. Resultantly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. 36. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the Trial Court and the concerned Superintendent of Jail be also supplied with a certified copy of this judgment for information and necessary action, if any, at the earliest.