JUDGMENT : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. At the outset, it is apposite to take note of the fact that there were total four accused persons in the instant case, out of which only A-1 Shivcharan Kanwar, A-2 Bharat Kanwar and A-4 Bifan Kanwar have challenged their conviction and sentence by preferring the instant appeal, whereas A-3 Rammin has not preferred any appeal against her conviction and sentence awarded by the impugned Judgment dated 20.4.2018. 2. Assail in the present criminal appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’, in brief) by A-1 Shivcharan Kanwar, A-2 Bharat Kanwar and A-4 Bifan Kanwar is to the impugned Judgment dated 20.4.2018 passed by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Trial Court) in Sessions Case No.105 of 2016, by which A-1 Shivcharan Kanwar and A-2 Bharat Kanwar each of them has been convicted for offence under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’, in brief) and A-4 Bifan Kanwar has been convicted for offence under Sections 364, 302/34 and 201 of IPC and they have been sentenced thereunder as mentioned in the chart given below:- A-1 Shivcharan Kanwar & A-2 Bharat Kanwar Conviction Sentence 1.Under Section 302/34 IPC. 1. Imprisonment for Life. 2. Fine of Rs.200/-. 3. Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 months, in default of payment of fine. 2.Under Section 201 IPC 1. Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years. 2. Fine of Rs.100/-. 3. Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 month, in default of payment of fine. With a direction to run both the sentences concurrently. And A-4 Bifan Kanwar Conviction Sentence 1. Under Section 364 IPC. 1. Imprisonment for Life. 2. Fine of Rs.200/-. 3. Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 months, in default of payment of fine. 2.Under Section 302/34 IPC. 1. Imprisonment for Life. 2. Fine of Rs.200/-. 3. Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 months, in default of payment of fine. 3.Under Section 201 IPC. 1. Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years. 2. Fine of Rs.100/-. 3. Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 month, in default of payment of fine. With a direction to run all the sentences concurrently. Factual backdrop of the prosecution case, in brief:- 3. 2. Fine of Rs.200/-. 3. Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 months, in default of payment of fine. 3.Under Section 201 IPC. 1. Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years. 2. Fine of Rs.100/-. 3. Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 month, in default of payment of fine. With a direction to run all the sentences concurrently. Factual backdrop of the prosecution case, in brief:- 3. On 13.5.2016 at about 5:30 a.m. from Vasen Bhudsari Raed river in Village Tunga under the jurisdiction of Police Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja, the four accused persons in the instant case are said to have abducted Suraj Dhanwar (deceased), who was aged about 13 years, from his lawful guardianship in order to commit human sacrifice and thereafter, in furtherance of their common intention, they committed murder of Suraj Dhanwar by cutting his throat by sharp edged weapon i.e., gandasa, and further in order to screen themselves from legal punishment they cause the evidence of his murder to disappear by concealing his dead body. 4. According to the prosecution, PW-4 Chamru Singh Dhanwar, father of deceased Suraj Dhanwar, had reported the matter at Police Station informing that his son, deceased Suraj Dhanwar was residing with her sister PW-5 Budhwaro Bai and her husband PW-6 Baisakhu at Village Nawapara (Lamchora) under Police Station Morga. On 11.5.2016 at about 6:00 pm, he was informed by PW-3 Chaitram that his son, deceased Suraj Dhanwar, was kidnapped by some unknown person. On the next day, he inquired about his son from his sister PW-5 Budhwarao Bai and PW-6 Baishaku who informed him that he was taken by some boy and thereafter on the report of PW-4 Chamru Singh Dhanwar, FIR under Section 363 of IPC was registered vide Crime No.49/2016 at Police Station Bango vide Exhibit P-43. On 13.5.2016, at around 5:30 a.m. in the morning, dead-body of deceased Suraj Dhanwar was noticed by PW-1 Bodhoram near Raed river, Tunga under Police Station Lakhanpur and on his information Merg was registered vide Exhibit P-1 on the same day at 8:40 a.m. and thereafter FIR was registered vide Exhibit P-2 at 8:55 a.m. at Police Station Lakhanpur vide Crime No.70/2016 against unknown person for offence under Section 302 of IPC. Inquest proceeding was conducted vide Exhibit P-4. Spot Map was prepared vide Exhibit P-5. Inquest proceeding was conducted vide Exhibit P-4. Spot Map was prepared vide Exhibit P-5. From the place of incident, seizure of blood mixed earth and control earth was made vide recovery memo Exhibit P-8 and seizure of a slipper and clothes was made vide recovery memo Exhibit P-9. Vide Exhibit P-17, dead-body was identified by PW-4 Chamru Singh Dhanwar to be that of his son deceased Suraj Dhanwar. Post-mortem examination of deceased was conducted by PW-9 Dr. I.D. Bhatnagar vide Exhibit P-28 in which cause of death of the deceased was opined to be hemorrhagic shock and due to injuries on his mid neck and sharp amputation of his left forearm below 1/3rd and the nature of his death was homicidal. 5. Subsequently, on 19.5.2016, memorandum statement of A-1 Shivcharan Kanwar was recorded vide Exhibit P-10 pursuant to which, a bloodstained old bag of ultratech cement was seized vide recovery memo Exhibit P-12 and pursuant the memorandum statement (Exhibit P-11) of A-2 Bharat Kanwar, a bloodstained wooden block was seized vide recovery memo Exhibit P-13. Vide Exhibit P-14, blood mixed earth and control earth were seized from the place of incident. Thereafter, on 27.5.2016, memorandum statement of A-4 Bifan Kanwar was recorded vide Exhibit P-21 pursuant to which, a bloodstained gandasa was seized vide recovery memo Exhibit P-23 and his clothes were seized vide recovery memo Exhibit P-24. Similarly, vide Exhibit P-22, a chopped forearm was also recovered pursuant to the memorandum statement of A-4 Bifan Kanwar in presence of PW-7 Heeradas and other witnesses. As per Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, Exhibit P-33, blood was found on the ultratech cement bag (Article ‘F’) seized from A-1 Shivcharan Kanwar, wooden block (Article ‘G’) seized from A-2 Bharat Kanwar as well as on the shirt (Article ‘J1’), gandasa (Article ‘J2’), jeans pant (Article ‘K’) and full shirt (Article ‘L’) seized from A-4 Bifan Kanwar, including the clothes of the deceased and blood mixed earth seized from the spot, except the control earth and slipper seized from the spot. 6. On completion of the investigation, all the accused persons were charge-sheeted before the concerned Magistrate who took cognizance on the charge-sheet and the case, being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. 6. On completion of the investigation, all the accused persons were charge-sheeted before the concerned Magistrate who took cognizance on the charge-sheet and the case, being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. The accused persons appeared before the Trial Court where charges were framed against them for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34, 364/34 & 201 of IPC to which they denied and claimed to be tried. 7. During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-17 and exhibited 44 documents vide Exhibits P-1 to P-44. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. In defence, one witness, Sampati, has been examined as DW-1. 8. After conclusion of trial, learned Trial Court, by impugned judgment dated 20.4.2018, on appreciation of the evidence available on record, held A-1 Shivcharan Kanwar and A-2 Bharat Kanwar guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 & 201 of IPC and A-4 Bifan Kanwar was held guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 364, 302/34 & 201 of IPC and accordingly they were convicted and sentenced thereunder as mentioned at the chart given in paragraph-2 of this judgment, which led to filing of the present appeal by A-1 Shivcharan Kanwar, A-2 Bharat Kanwar and A-4 Bifan Kanwar calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court. Though by the impugned judgment, A-3 Rammin was also convicted by the Trial Court for offence under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.100/-with default stipulation, but she has not preferred any appeal against her conviction and sentence. Submission of learned amicus curiae:- 9. Mr. Though by the impugned judgment, A-3 Rammin was also convicted by the Trial Court for offence under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.100/-with default stipulation, but she has not preferred any appeal against her conviction and sentence. Submission of learned amicus curiae:- 9. Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, learned senior counsel, as amicus curiae would submit that so far as A-1 Shivcharan Kanwar and A-2 Bharat Kanwar are concerned there is no evidence against them and so far as A-4 Bifan Kanwar is concerned he has been convicted only on the basis of last-seen together, whereas A-4 Bifan Kanwar and deceased Suraj Dhanwar were last seen on 11.5.2016 at around 6:00 a.m. and the dead-body of deceased Suraj Dhanwar was noticed at around 5:30 am on 13.5.2016 with a gap of approximately 48 hours and as such in absence of corroboration, A-4 Bifan Kanwar could not have been convicted by learned Trial Court. He would further submit that though chopped forearm has been recovered pursuant to the memorandum statement of A-4 Bifan Kanwar but the same has not been identified in accordance with law and the opinion statement of PW-9 Dr. I.D. Bhatnagar that the seized amputated forearm belonged to deceased Suraj Dhanwar cannot be said to be a legal evidence only on the basis of level of cutting of the seized amputated forearm with amputated hand of the deceased Suraj Dhanwar, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Ram Lochan Ahir v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1963 SC 1074 as well as in the matter of Pattu Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2019) 4 SCC 771 recently followed in the matter of S. Kaleeswaran v. State by the Inspector of Police Pollachi Town East Police Station, Coimbatore, District Tamil Nadu, 2022 SCC Online SC 1511. Submission of learned counsel for the appellants:- 10. Ms. Sofia Khan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt as there is no legal evidence to connect the appellants with the alleged offence and therefore they are entitled to acquittal allowing the appeal. Submission of learned State Counsel:- 11. Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General appearing along with Mr. Submission of learned State Counsel:- 11. Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General appearing along with Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned Panel Lawyer, for the Respondent/State, would submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and that the amputated forearm of deceased Suraj Dhanwar was recovered pursuant to the memorandum statement of A-4 Bifan Kanwar who was seen along with the deceased by PW-13 Anjor Singh and the amputated forearm was identified by PW-9 Dr. I.D. Bhatnagar who has conducted the post-mortem examination of deceased Suraj Dhanwar and as such it is amply proved that the amputated forearm was of deceased Suraj Dhanwar. Thus, the conviction of the appellants for the said offences is absolutely justified and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Discussion and analysis:- 12. We have heard learned counsel for parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also perused the record carefully and thoroughly. 13. The primary question, as to whether the death of deceased Suraj Dhanwar was homicidal in nature, has been answered by learned Trial Court in affirmative relying upon the statement of PW-9 Dr. I.D. Bhatnagar who has conducted the post-mortem examination of deceased Suraj Dhanwar vide Exhibit P-28 and opined the cause of his death to be hemorrhagic shock and due to injuries on his mid neck and sharp amputation of his left forearm below 1/3rd and the nature of his death to be homicidal, which, in our considered opinion, is correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. We, therefore, affirm the said finding of the Trial Court, holding that the death of deceased Suraj Dhanwar was homicidal in nature. 14. Now, as is apparent from the evidence available on record, the present case is not based on direct evidence rather it is a case based on the circumstantial evidence. Hence, it would be appropriate to notice herein the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 in which the five golden principles which constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence have been catalogued in paragraph-153 which reads as under:- “153. Hence, it would be appropriate to notice herein the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 in which the five golden principles which constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence have been catalogued in paragraph-153 which reads as under:- “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 , where the following observations were made: Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (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.” 15. Since A-1 Shivcharan Kanwar and A-2 Bharat Kanwar have been convicted for offence under Sections 302/34 and 201 of IPC and A-4 Bifan Kanwar has been convicted for offence under Sections 364, 302/34 and 201 of IPC, for the sake of convenience and also in view of the evidence which have come on record against them, we will first consider and decide the case of A-1 Shivcharan Kanwar and A-2 Bharat Kanwar and thereafter the case of A-4 Bifan Kanwar one by one. Conviction of A-1 Shivcharan Kanwar and A-2 Bharat Kanwar:- 16. So far as A-1 Shivcharan Kanwar and A-2 Bharat Kanwar, they have been convicted only on the basis of their memorandum statement pursuant to which recovery of some bloodstained articles was made. Memorandum statement of A-1 Shivcharan Kanwar was recorded vide Exhibit P-10 pursuant to which, a bloodstained old bag of ultratech cement was seized vide recovery memo Exhibit P-12. Similarly, pursuant the memorandum statement (Exhibit P-11) of A-2 Bharat Kanwar, a bloodstained wooden block was seized vide recovery memo Exhibit P-13. In FSL report (Exhibit P-33) only blood was found on the ultratech cement bag (Article ‘F’) seized from A-1 Shivcharan Kanwar and on the wooden block (Article ‘G’) seized from A-2 Bharat Kanwar. Except the recovery of the said articles, nothing has been recovered from their possession. Mere recovery of a bloodstained bag of ultratech cement from A-1 Shivcharan Kanwar and a bloodstained wooden block from A-2 Bharat Kanwar would not lead to the conclusion that they were involved in the commission of instant crime unless there are some other incriminating circumstances stand proved to connect the recovery of the said articles. 17. In the matter of Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 11 SCC 724 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held in paragraph 25 as under:- “25. With regard to Section 27 of the Act, what is important is discovery of the material object at the disclosure of the accused but such disclosure alone would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the offence was also committed by the accused. In fact, thereafter, burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between discovery of the material object and its use in the commission of the offence. In fact, thereafter, burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between discovery of the material object and its use in the commission of the offence. What is admissible under Section 27 of the Act is the information leading to discovery and not any opinion formed on it by the prosecution.” 18. Similarly, in the matter of S.K. Yusuf v. State of West Bengal, (2011) 11 SCC 754 their Lordships of the Supreme Court in paragraph 34 have held as follows:- “34. The nature of the admissibility of the facts discovered pursuant to the statement of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is very limited. If an accused deposes to the police officer the fact as a result of which the weapon with which the crime is committed is discovered, and as a result of such disclosure, recovery of the weapon is made, no inference can be drawn against the accused, if there is no evidence connecting the weapon with the crime alleged to have been committed by the accused.” 19. Reverting to the facts of the case, in view of the principles of law laid down in the matters of Mustkeem (supra) and S.K. Yusuf (supra), it is quite vivid that merely for the fact that pursuant to the memorandum statement of A-1 Shivcharan Kanwar and A-2 Bharat Kanwar, some material objects have been seized, no inference can be drawn against them if there is no evidence connecting those objects with the crime alleged to have been committed by them. As such, mere recovery of the aforesaid articles from A-1 Shivcharan Kanwar and A-2 Bharat Kanwar would not itself lead to the conclusion that they were also involved in the commission of the alleged offence. 20. Similarly, since in the FSL report no human blood was found on the said articles alleged to have been seized from A-1 Shivcharan and A-2 Bharat Kanwar, their recovery itself would be of no use to the prosecution, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Balwan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another, (2019) 7 SCC 781 . 21. 21. Thus, in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred herein-above, in absence of corroboration the conviction of A-1 Shivcharan Kanwar and A-2 Bharat Kanwar only on the basis of recovery of bloodstained articles cannot be said to be justified and therefore their conviction for offence under Sections 302/34 and 201 of IPC deserves to be and the same is hereby set-aside. Conviction of A-4 Bifan Kanwar:- 22. As regards the conviction of A-4 Bifan Kanwar, it is a case of the prosecution that A-4 Bifan Kanwar was last-seen together with the minor victim, deceased Suraj Dhanwar, as per the statement of PW-6 Baishakhu who has seen A-4 Bifan Kanwar along with deceased Suraj Dhanwar on 11.5.2016 at around 6:00 a.m. which has also been established from the statement of PW-5 Budhwaro Bai. However, dead-body of deceased Suraj Dhanwar was recovered on 13.5.2016 at around 5:30 a.m. by PW-1 Bodhoram, pursuant to which Merg was lodged vide Exhibit P-1 at 8:40 a.m. 23. In the matter of Navaneethakrishnan v. State by Inspector of Police, (2018) 16 SCC 161 , the Supreme Court has held that though the evidence of last seen together could point to the guilt of the accused, but this evidence alone cannot discharge the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and requires corroboration, and observed in paragraph 22 as under:- “22. PW 11 was able to identify all the three accused in the court itself by recapitulating his memory as those persons who came at the time when he was washing his car along with John Bosco and further that he had last seen all of them sitting in the Omni van on that day and his testimony to that effect remains intact even during the cross-examination in the light of the fact that the said witness has no enmity whatsoever against the appellants herein and he is an independent witness. Once the testimony of PW 11 is established and inspires full confidence, it is well established that it is the accused who were last seen with the deceased specially in the circumstances when there is nothing on record to show that they parted from the accused and since then no activity of the deceased can be traced and their dead bodies were recovered later on. It is a settled legal position that the law presumes that it is the person, who was last seen with the deceased, would have killed the deceased and the burden to rebut the same lies on the accused to prove that they had departed. Undoubtedly, the last seen theory is an important event in the chain of circumstances that would completely establish and/or could point to the guilt of the accused with some certainty. However, this evidence alone cannot discharge the burden of establishing the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and requires corroboration.” 24. A careful perusal of the statement of PW-5 Budhwaro Bai would show that she had only informed her husband, PW-6 Baishakhu, that one unknown person had abducted Suraj (deceased). In her cross-examination, she has clearly admitted that she did not know the name of A-4 Bifan Kanwar and only when she was shown the photograph of A-4 Bifan Kanwar and his name was disclosed by police to her, she could be able to identify A-4 Bifan Kanwar who had taken the deceased along with him. As such, it is not established that A-4 Bifan Kanwar had taken the deceased Suraj Dhanwar along with him. Thus, in view of the decision of Navaneethakrishnan (supra), corroboration is required. 25. In shape of corroboration, the prosecution has alleged that pursuant to the memorandum statement of A-4 Bifan Kanwar (Exhibit P-21), an amputated forearm was recovered vide recovery memo Exhibit P-22 and a gandasa was seized vide recovery memo Exhibit P-23 and his clothes were also seized vide recovery memo Exhibit P-24. Identification of amputated forearm 26. PW-9 Dr. I.D. Bhatnagar who has conducted the post-mortem of deceased Suraj Dhanwar, in the post-mortem report (Exhibit P-28) has only mentioned that there a was sharp amputation of left hand below 1/3rd. Further, in his examination report of the amputated forearm (Exhibit P-29A), PW-9 Dr. Bhatnagar has opined that he had checked and examined a sharp cutting left hand amputated (iatk) c lower forearm which was under decomposition from 2 weeks approximately and it belonged to Suraj Dhanwar. The said report is being reproduced herein under:- “Regarding the P.M. of Suraj Dhanwar S/o Chamru Ram, age 12 years, dt. 14.5.20156 (P.M. date). A sharp cutting left hand amputated (iatk ) c lower forearm check and examined. It is under decomposition about 2 weeks old belong to Suraj Dhanwar. The said report is being reproduced herein under:- “Regarding the P.M. of Suraj Dhanwar S/o Chamru Ram, age 12 years, dt. 14.5.20156 (P.M. date). A sharp cutting left hand amputated (iatk ) c lower forearm check and examined. It is under decomposition about 2 weeks old belong to Suraj Dhanwar. It is brought by P.C. Net Ram 466 – handed over to same P.C. Thana Lakhanpur, Dt. 28.5.2016 12:40. Sd/- I.D. Bhatnagar, Medical Officer, CHC Lakhanpur.” 27. However, in paragraph 7 of his cross-examination, PW-9 Dr. I.D. Bhatnagar has admitted that he had given the said report opining the chopped forearm belonged to deceased Suraj Dhanwar only on the basis of the level of amputation of the chopped forearm comparing to the amputated hand of deceased Suraj Dhanwar who was examined by him during the post-mortem. Relevant portion of the statement of PW-9 Dr. I.D. Bhatnagar is also being reproduced herein under:- ^^eSusa lwjt ds 'ko dk ijh{k.k fd;k Fkk vkSj ijh{k.k ds nkSjku mlds 'kjhj ij tks gkFk ftl yscy ls dVk gqvk Fkk mlds vk/kkj ij vkSj tks gkaFk esjs le{k tkap gsrq yk;k x;k Fkk mlds vk/kkj ij eSuas ;g fjiksVZ nh Fkh fd mDr gkFk lwjt dk gSA^^ 28. In view of Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (‘the Evidence Act’, in brief), the aforesaid statement/opinion of PW-9 I.D. Bhatnagar deserves to be dismissed. Section 9 of the Evidence Act reads as under:- “9. Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which establish the identity of any thing or person whose identity is relevant , or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened, or which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose.” 29. Section 9 of the Evidence Act came to be considered in the matter of Ram Lochan Ahir (supra) wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held in paragraph 9 as under:- “9. The contention urged before us by learned counsel was that this photograph was not admissible under any section of the Indian Evidence Act. If learned counsel is right here, he could succeed in having this evidence rejected as inadmissible. The contention urged before us by learned counsel was that this photograph was not admissible under any section of the Indian Evidence Act. If learned counsel is right here, he could succeed in having this evidence rejected as inadmissible. We are, however, clearly of the opinion that it is admissible in evidence under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. The section reads:- “9. Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which establish the identity of any thing or person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened, or which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose.” The question at issue in the case is the identity of the skeleton. That identity could be established by its physical or visual examination with reference to any peculiar features in it which would mark it out as belonging to the person whose bones or skeleton it is stated to be. Similarly the size of the bones, their angularity or curvature, the prominences or the recessions would be features which on examination and comparison might serve to establish the “Identity of a thing” within the meaning of Section 9. What we have in the present case is first a photograph of that skull. That the skull would be admissible in evidence for establishing the identity of the deceased was not disputed, and similarly a photograph of that skull. That a photograph of the deceased was admissible in evidence to prove his facial features, where these are facts in issue or relevant facts, is also beyond controversy. Now what PW 18 with the assistance of PW 19 has done is to combine these two. The outlines of the skull which is seen in the superimposed photograph show the nasion prominences, the width of the jaw bones and their shape, the general contours of the cheek bones, the position of the eye cavity and the comparison of these with the contours etc. The outlines of the skull which is seen in the superimposed photograph show the nasion prominences, the width of the jaw bones and their shape, the general contours of the cheek bones, the position of the eye cavity and the comparison of these with the contours etc. of the face of the deceased as seen in the photograph serve to prove that features found in the skull and the features in the bones of the face of the deceased are identical or at least not dissimilar. It appears to us that such clearly be within Section 9 of the Evidence Act.” 30. In the post-mortem report (Exhibit P-28), PW-9 Dr. I.D. Bhatnagar has only opined that there was a sharp amputation of left forearm below 1/3rd but he did not opine clearly whether there was cutting from ulna/ radius bone or there was cutting from carpal wrist bone or metacarpal bone etc. Similarly, while examining the amputated forearm vide Exhibit P-29A, PW-9 Dr. I.D. Bhatnagar had only recorded the finding that the amputated forearm belonged to deceased Suraj Dhanwar. No finding has been recorded in respect of the size of the bones, their angularity or curvature, the prominences or the recessions which would be the features which on examination and comparison might serve to establish the “identity of a thing” within the meaning of Section 9 of the Evidence Act. 31. Thereafter, the Supreme Court in the matter of Pattu Rajan (supra) has held that superimposition test cannot be taken as a conclusive one for the identification of a dead body and observed in paragraph 55 as under:- “55. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court was justified in observing that a superimposition test cannot be taken as a conclusive one for the identification of a dead body, because by itself it may not conclusively establish identification. However, the High Court rightly accepted the expert testimony on this aspect since in the instant case, the superimposition test was merely one piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 in order to strengthen its case.” 32. However, the High Court rightly accepted the expert testimony on this aspect since in the instant case, the superimposition test was merely one piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 in order to strengthen its case.” 32. Subsequently, recently in the matter of S. Kaleeswaran (supra), the Supreme Court relying upon the principles of law laid down in Pattu Rajan (supra) has held since the superimposition report was not supported by any other reliable medical evidence like a DNA report or post-mortem report, it would be very risky to convict the accused believing the identification of the dead-body of the victim through the superimposition test. 33. In the recent past also in the matter of Indrajit Das v. The State of Tripura, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 152, where the dead-body was not recovered, only a limb was recovered, in absence of DNA testing, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that one of major links of the chain of circumstances is not established. 34. In the instant case, PW-9 Dr. I.D. Bhatnagar, who has conducted the post-mortem examination of deceased Suraj Dhanwar vide Exhibit P-28, did not record the features of the amputated hand whether it was cut from ulna/radius bone or from carpal wrist bone or metacarpal bone. Similarly, in Exhibit P-29A also except for the finding recorded by PW-9 Dr. I.D. Bhatnagar that the amputated forearm decomposed about two weeks old belonged to deceased Suraj Dhanwar, nothing has been recorded to establish as to on what basis the amputated forearm was opined to be belonged to deceased Suraj Dhanwar, particularly when the amputated forearm was itself found to be decomposed of two weeks. Thus, the post-mortem report (Exhibit P-28) opining the sharp amputation of left hand below 1/3rd and the examination report (Exhibit P-9) of decomposed forearm both absolutely fail to establish the features on which the identity of amputated forearm seized pursuant to the memorandum statement of A-4 Bifan Kanwar can be said to be fully established to that of deceased Suraj Dhanwar. In that view of the matter, learned Trial Court is absolutely unjustified in holding that the recovered forearm was of deceased Suraj Dhanwar. Recovery of bloodstained articles 35. In that view of the matter, learned Trial Court is absolutely unjustified in holding that the recovered forearm was of deceased Suraj Dhanwar. Recovery of bloodstained articles 35. Pursuant to the memorandum statement of A-4 Bifan Kanwar (Exhibit P-21), a gandasa was recovered vide recovery memo (Exhibit P-23) and his clothes were recovered vide recovery memo (Exhibit P-24) and in the FSL report (Exhibit P-33) blood was found on the shirt (Article ‘J1’), gandasa (Article ‘J2’), jeans pant (Article ‘K’) and full shirt (Article ‘L’) seized from A-4 Bifan Kanwar. But, since no human blood was found on the said articles alleged to have been seized from A-4 Bifan Kanwar, their recovery would be of no use to the prosecution, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court delivered in the matter of Balwan Singh (supra) wherein it was held in paragraph 24 as under:- “24. In the instant case, then, we could have placed some reliance on the recovery, had the prosecution at least proved that the blood was of human origin. As observed supra, while discussing the evidence of PWs 9 and 16, the prosecution has tried to concoct the case from stage to stage. Hence, in the absence of positive material indicating that the stained blood was of human origin and of the same blood group as that of the accused, it would be difficult for the Court to rely upon the aspect of recovery of the weapons and tabbal, and such recovery does not help the case of the prosecution.” 36. Thus, for the foregoing reasons and finding, in light of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred herein-above, the conviction of A-4 Bifan Kanwar for offence under Sections 364, 302/34 and 201 of IPC also deserves to be and is hereby set-aside. Conclusion:- 37. In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis keeping in view the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the above referred judgments, we conclude as follows:- (1) The conviction of A-1 Shivcharan Kanwar and A-2 Bharat Kanwar for offence under Sections 302/34 and 201 of IPC is set-aside and they are acquitted of the said charges. A-1 Shivcharan Kanwar and A-2 Bharat Kanwar are already on bail by virtue of Order dated 16.3.2020 of this Court. They need not surrender. A-1 Shivcharan Kanwar and A-2 Bharat Kanwar are already on bail by virtue of Order dated 16.3.2020 of this Court. They need not surrender. However, their bail-bonds shall remain in operation for a further period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of CrPC. (2) The conviction of A-4 Bifan Kanwar for offence under Sections 364, 302/34 and 201 of IPC is also set-aside and he is acquitted of the said charges. He is reported to be in jail. He be released forthwith from jail, unless his detention is required in any other case. 38. In the result, the appeal is allowed. 39. 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 copy of this judgment, for information and necessary action, if any. 40. This Court renders a word of appreciation to Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate, for his valuable assistance as amicus curiae in this appeal.