JUDGMENT : K.Surender, J. These appeals are filed by appellants/accused Nos.1, 2, and 3, aggrieved by the judgment, dated 11.12.2014 in S.C.No.136 of 2014, passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Godavarikhani, questioning their conviction and sentence under Sections 120-B, 302, and 380 of IPC. 2. Heard Mr. T.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for accused No.1, Mr. S.Ram Reddy, learned counsel for accused No.2 and S M Rafeo, learned counsel for accused No.3 and Mr. Dodla Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of respondent-State. 3. The brief facts of prosecution case are that, on 08.07.2012, at about 00.05 hours, PW1, who is husband of Mrs. Jyothikala (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), lodged a complaint in NTPC Police Station stating that, on 07.07.2012, at about 01:45 pm, he left for his second shift of official duty in NTPC and the deceased was alone in the house at that time. While he was on duty, he made a phone call to deceased at about 7:30 P.M., but there was no response from the deceased to his call. Again, he made another call to the landline phone, but there was no response from deceased to his second call. He returned home at about 8:00 P.M, and found the deceased lying dead on cot, in the bedroom. He also observed that a kerchief was gagged into her mouth, and that her hands were tied with an electric wire, and also found that gold pusthelatadu and two gold rings were missing. PW1 suspected that some unknown persons committed theft and killed his wife. He gave a report (Ex. P-1) to the S.I. of Police, NTPC, PW-15, who registered a case in Crime No.101/2012 for the offences under Sections 120-B, 302, and 380 of IPC, and issued express FIR/Ex.P-16. 4. Basing on the report of PW-1, PW-16, Inspector of Police, took up the investigation from PW-15 and recorded the statement of PW-1, and rushed to the scene of offence, and also called for dog squad from Karimnagar. He had collected blood stains on the floor and on door curtain of the bed room, with cotton swabs from the scene, with the help of clues team. He had collected blood stains on the floor and on door curtain of the bed room, with cotton swabs from the scene, with the help of clues team. PW- 16 also seized the plastic electric wire (MO.19), saree (MO.17), kerchief (MO.18), broken bangle pieces (MO.16), and one tester (MO.20) from the scene of offence, and conducted scene of offence Panchanama in the presence of PW-10 & LW-20. PW-16 also examined PWs.3, 4, & 6 and recorded their statements. PW-16 also recorded the statement of PW-2 and LW-9, who are respectively, the daughter and son-in-law of PW-1 and the deceased. Thereafter, he completed inquest on the dead body of deceased and sent the body for post mortem examination to Government Area Hospital, Godhavarikhani. 5. PW-14 and Dr. Surya Rao (LW.27) conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased, and preserved intestine, liver, etc., for chemical analysis. Ex. P-14 is the post mortem report and Ex. P-15 is the final report, and the cause of death as per Doctor's report, is due to asphyxia and shock, and it was opined that the deceased died due to smothering and throttling. 6. It is further case of the prosecution that PW-16 has procured call details of all network companies and verified the call details with the help of tower IDs and calls made at PTS NTPC on 07-07-2012, and observed that there were frequent calls from mobile number 9000280882 to mobile numbers 8501930240 and 9951103666. 7. The further case of the prosecution is that, on 25.08.2012, at about 7:00 am, PW-16 apprehended A1 & A2 at Goutham Nagar, NTPC, and interrogated them and recorded their confession statement(s) in presence of PW-12 and LW-22. 8. It is alleged that at the instance of appellant, the Police seized M.O.1 to ??.15, ?.?.19, ?.?.27, and ?.O.28, at Goutham Nagar and from appellant's house at Ranapur. 9. PW-16 also collected the call data records among the appellant and accused Nos.2 and 3. The prosecution agency also collected CCTV footage and Compact Disc/Exs.P7 & P8 through PW-11 from NTPC. 10. Learned Sessions Judge relied on the following circumstances, as projected by the prosecution to convict the appellants: 1. The deceased was found dead on 07.07.2012, and death was homicidal. Her jewellery was missing. 2. CCTV Footage, which was recovered and marked as Exs.P7 and P8, shows the presence of accused No.1 near the scene. 3. 10. Learned Sessions Judge relied on the following circumstances, as projected by the prosecution to convict the appellants: 1. The deceased was found dead on 07.07.2012, and death was homicidal. Her jewellery was missing. 2. CCTV Footage, which was recovered and marked as Exs.P7 and P8, shows the presence of accused No.1 near the scene. 3. When DNA tests were conducted on the swabs collected from the scene, it tallied with the DNA of accused No.2. 4. The accused were absconding. After the arrest, confessions were recorded, pursuant to which, seizures were effected, including jewellery of the deceased, from accused Nos.1 to 3. 11. The main thrust of the argument of learned counsel for appellants is that, insofar as accused No.1 is concerned, the main connecting link is CCTV footage. However, no 65(B) certificate was filed along with the footage, as such, the said CCTV footage cannot be looked into to infer that accused No.1 was found at the scene at the relevant time. 12. The second contention is that the DNA, which was allegedly found at the scene, cannot be looked into, since there is a delay of nearly one year before the tests were done. The guidelines for collection and storage require that the samples be sent immediately after the collection, and that the collection should also be done with utmost care. However, though samples were collected on 08.07.2012, they were produced before the Magistrate on 28.07.2012, and sent to FSL on 29.11.2012, which was after collection of the blood samples of accused No.2. The possibility of tampering with samples to implicate the accused cannot be ruled out. 13. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that the recovery of the jewellery cannot form the sole basis for conviction. Learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subramanya v. State of Karnataka , [ (2023) 11 SCC 255 ] 14. Learned Senior Counsel also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nishad v. State of Maharashtra , [ AIR 2023 SC 2938 ] in support of his arguments that there cannot be a delay in sending the samples for DNA testing, and when there is an unexplained delay, the said test cannot be looked into. Learned Senior Counsel also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nishad v. State of Maharashtra , [ AIR 2023 SC 2938 ] in support of his arguments that there cannot be a delay in sending the samples for DNA testing, and when there is an unexplained delay, the said test cannot be looked into. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mustkeem v. State of Rajasthan , [ AIR 2011 SC 2769 ] , dealing with circumstantial evidence, wherein, Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the recovery and admissibility of confession under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, held that a statement which leads to discovery of fact would be admissible. However, in the present case, it was argued that the portion that was marked in the confession does not fall within the admissibility, as required under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 15. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the case is of circumstantial evidence, and all the circumstances relied on by the prosecution would collectively indicate that appellants are the persons who had perpetrated the crime. 1. CCTV Footage: Exs.P7 and P8 are the compact disks which are filed by the prosecution showing presence of accused No.1 near the scene of offence. The said CCTV Footage was transferred on to the compact disk and filed before the Court. The main source of storage is the hard disk, which stores the recording of cameras. However, the hard disk was not filed. Once the contents of recording from the hard disk are transferred on to a compact disk, it is incumbent on the person, who has provided the disks, to give a certificate as required under Section 65(B)(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, so that, the requirements as contemplated under Section 65(B)(4) are met. In the absence of such certification, the Court cannot look into the said CCTV footage evidence. 16. The Hon’ble Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, in the latest judgment of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and others , [ (2020) 7 SCC 1 ] , held that, when the primary evidence is not produced, producing of certificate under Section 65(B)(4) of Indian Evidence Act, is mandatory to consider secondary evidence. 16. The Hon’ble Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, in the latest judgment of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and others , [ (2020) 7 SCC 1 ] , held that, when the primary evidence is not produced, producing of certificate under Section 65(B)(4) of Indian Evidence Act, is mandatory to consider secondary evidence. The prosecution relied heavily on the CCTV footage to implicate accused No.1, apart from the seizure that was effected at his instance. Insofar as CCTV footage is concerned, the same cannot be relied upon. 17. The recovery aspects will be discussed in the later paragraphs. 2. Collection of samples from the scene: The case of the prosecution is that the blood stain samples were collected by the Investigating Officer from the scene of offence on 08.07.2012. The samples were cotton swabs, which are six in number, and were secured separately in six covers. The said samples were produced before the concerned Court on 28.07.2012. Meanwhile, during the course of their investigation, the Investigating Officer apprehended accused Nos.1 to 3 on 25.08.2012. After recording their confessions and seizure statements, the blood sample of accused No.2 was collected on 29.11.2012, and the same was sent to FSL for DNA testing on 29.11.2012. The FSL report/Ex.P38 was issued on 23.11.2013. It is not out of place to mention that the FSL expert, who conducted testing, was not examined by the prosecution before the trial Court. 18. There are guidelines in place for Investigating Officers, which are to be followed during the course of collection and preservation of samples at the scene of offence. 19. The relevant guideline for Investigating Officers of the CFSL, issued by the Directorate of Forensic Sciences Services, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, reads as under: “Procedure for collection and preservation of biological evidence by Investigating Officer: The dried blood stains which are found at the scene in the form of spatters or stains have to be collected by moistening the dry blood stains for 5-10 minutes with distilled water. The stains have to be collected with foam tipped swab or gauze piece and air dry the swab. This pack has to be placed on proper envelop. The samples must immediately transported to concerned laboratory and it should not be any delay. Further, precautions are also to be taken so as not to contaminate the samples.” 20. The stains have to be collected with foam tipped swab or gauze piece and air dry the swab. This pack has to be placed on proper envelop. The samples must immediately transported to concerned laboratory and it should not be any delay. Further, precautions are also to be taken so as not to contaminate the samples.” 20. The officer collecting the samples was not examined. Investigating Officer speaks about collection of samples. However, the samples that were collected on 08.07.2012, were produced before the concerned Magistrate on 28.07.2012. Further, the Investigating Officer has not stated the condition under which the samples were stored or in whose custody the samples were for a period of 20 days. Again, there is no proper explanation regarding custody of the samples from 28.07.2012 till 29.11.2012. The Investigating Officer failed to explain as to why the samples were not immediately sent to the FSL, in accordance with the rules. There arises any amount of suspicion regarding samples being sent by the Investigating Officer only after the blood samples of accused No.2 were collected on 29.11.2012. Furthermore, the test report is dated 23.11.2013, which is nearly one year after samples were sent. 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nishad v. State of Maharashtra (supra), found that the unexplained delay in sending the samples is fatal to the prosecution case. The relevant paragraphs are as follows: “61. In the present case, the delay in sending the samples is unexplained and therefore, the possibility of contamination and the concomitant prospect of diminishment in value cannot be reasonably ruled out. On the need for expedition in ensuring that samples when collected are sent to the concerned laboratory as soon as possible, we may refer to "Guidelines for collection, storage and transportation of Crime Scene DNA samples For Investigating Officers- Central Forensic Science Laboratory Directorate Of Forensic Sciences Services Ministry Of Home Affairs, Govt. of India" which in particular reference to blood and semen, irrespective of its form, i.e, liquid or dry (crust/stain or spatter) records the sample so taken "Must be submitted in the laboratory without any delay." 62. of India" which in particular reference to blood and semen, irrespective of its form, i.e, liquid or dry (crust/stain or spatter) records the sample so taken "Must be submitted in the laboratory without any delay." 62. The document also lays emphasis on the 'chain of custody' being maintained, Chain of custody implies that right from the time of taking of the sample, to the time its role in the investigation and processes subsequent, is complete, each person handling said piece of evidence must duly be acknowledged in the documentation, so as to ensure that the integrity is uncompromised. It is recommended that a document be duly maintained cataloguing the custody. A chain of custody document in other words is a document, "which should include name or initials of the individual collecting the evidence, each person or entity subsequently having custody of it, dated the items were collected or transferred, agency and case number, victim's or suspect's name and the brief description of the item.” 22. In a serious case of murder, the handling of samples, their custody, and the samples being sent to the concerned laboratory without delay, has to be clearly reflected in the prosecution case. In the absence of any explanation regarding the delay and the custody of the samples in proper form, there arises any amount of doubt regarding correctness of the prosecution version and also the report. The expert was not examined. The expert would be the proper person to speak about whether the samples, which were sent to the FSL nearly 2 months after collection, would be fit for conducting tests. No reason is given as to why the expert was not examined. Though under Section 294 of Cr.P.C., the FSL report given by the Assistant Director can be looked into, however, the provision also gives powers to the Court to call for the expert to clear any doubts. As already discussed, the reason for delay in sending the samples and the manner in which the samples were collected ought to have been explained by the prosecution by examining the experts. 23. In view of the reasons discussed above, the DNA report/Ex.P35 cannot be looked into to connect the accused No.2 with the scene of offence. 3. Recoveries: 24. The other major circumstance relied on by the prosecution are the recoveries that were effected at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 3. 23. In view of the reasons discussed above, the DNA report/Ex.P35 cannot be looked into to connect the accused No.2 with the scene of offence. 3. Recoveries: 24. The other major circumstance relied on by the prosecution are the recoveries that were effected at the instance of accused Nos.1 to 3. The following articles were seized from A1: i. Gold pusthella thadu weighing 24 grams (PW-6 got it weighed by PW-7); and ii. Samsung cell phone with SIM card number 8501930240; The following articles were seized from A2: i. Nalla pusala golusu weighing 24 grams; ii. One gold ring with white stones weighing 3.6 grams; iii. One gold ring with red stones weighing 2.4 grams; iv. Gold locket weighing 5.9 grams; and v. Samsung cell phone with SIM card number 9502148188; vi. One Bajaj CT-100 motor cycle bearing no. AP-28-BD-5065 (Items 1-4 were weighed by PW-7) The following articles were seized from A3: i. One gold plain ring weighing 1.3 grams; and ii. Bajaj motorcycle. 25. The confession of an accused is hit by Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. However, exceptions are made under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act regarding the admissibility of confession. The admissibility is to the extent of a discovery of new fact that comes to the knowledge of the Investigating Officer during the investigation. For an admissible portion of any confession to fall within Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, it must be directly connected to the knowledge of accused of a fact, that was not previously known to the Investigating Officer and must have been discovered at the instance of accused pursuant to such confession. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Mustkeem v. State of Rajasthan (supra), held as follows: “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 objects and its use in the commission of the offence. What is admissible under Section 27 of the Act is the information leading to discovery and not any opinion formed on it by the prosecution.” 26. In fact, thereafter, burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between discovery of the material objects and its use in the commission of the offence. What is admissible under Section 27 of the Act is the information leading to discovery and not any opinion formed on it by the prosecution.” 26. If the recovery memos were prepared at the police station itself then the same would lose their sanctity as held by this Court in Varun Chaudhary V. State of Rajasthan². 27. The scope and ambit of Section 27 were also illuminatingly stated in Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor reproduced hereinbelow: "... it is fallacious to treat the 'fact discovered' within the section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. Information supplied by a person in custody that 'I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house' does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. But if to the statement the words be added 'with which I stabbed A', these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant." The same observations were thereafter restated in another judgment of this Court in Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan. 26. The entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence. 26. The entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence. In cases of circumstantial evidence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra , [ (1984) 4 SCC 116 ] , held as follows: “The following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established on circumstantial evidence: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely ‘may be’ fully established, (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” The doctrine of circumstantial evidence was once again discussed and summarised in Sattatiya v. State of Maharashtra , [ (2008) 3 SCC 210 ] , in the following terms: “10. It is settled law that an offence can be proved not only by direct evidence but also by circumstantial evidence where there is no direct evidence. The court can draw an inference of guilt when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be totally incompatible with the innocence of the accused. Of course, the circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances.” 27. In the confession of accused No.1, Ex.P10 was marked as the admissible portion of accused No.1. The confession led to the recovery of gold jewellery from accused No.1. Ex.P10 reads, “the said gold pustela thadu was weighed and both of them are 24 grams, sealed in plastic cover and the panchas have signed and pasted slips” (translated by me). 28. The said portion, which was marked as Ex.P10 during the course of trial, cannot be said to be admissible under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P10 reads, “the said gold pustela thadu was weighed and both of them are 24 grams, sealed in plastic cover and the panchas have signed and pasted slips” (translated by me). 28. The said portion, which was marked as Ex.P10 during the course of trial, cannot be said to be admissible under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.P10 narrates regarding weight of the jewellery and also the manner in which they were sealed. However, the basic requirement of discovery at the instance of the accused is not reflected in Ex.P10. In the absence of Ex.P10 not falling within the requirement of Section 27 of Evidence Act, the same cannot be looked into, and the seizures that were allegedly effected at the instance of accused No.1, cannot be considered by the Court as an exception to be considered under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 29. Similarly, Ex.P11 is the admissible portion that was marked insofar as accused No.2 is concerned. Ex.P11 reads, “1. Nallapusalu Golusu (black beads) weighing 24 grams, 2. White stone studded ring weighing 3.6 grams, 3. Red stone ring weighing 2.4 grams, 4. Gold locket weighing 5.9 grams and all the jewellery was placed in plastic cover” (translated by me). As discussed above, Ex.P11 does not reflect that there was any discovery of new fact during investigation. Ex.P11 cannot form basis to infer that seizures were affected at the instance of accused No.2. 30. Ex.P13 is the admissible portion that was marked, insofar as accused No.3 is concerned. Ex.P13 reads, “we the panchas have examined that the ring which is ordinary ring and it was taken to Chandrashekar who is gold smith who examined it and weighed which is 1.300 gms., valued at Rs.3,000/-. CBZ motor cycle was also examined and it is Hero Honda Company bearing No.AP29-L-5962 in yellow color, with chassis No.05H46C00491” (translated by me). The said portion is inadmissible and does not satisfy the requirement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, to read the said statement against the appellant, and for the Court to infer that a new fact was discovered or the said ornaments were seized at the instance of accused No.3. 31. When the CCTV footage, DNA test, and the recoveries, for the reasons discussed above, are eschewed from consideration, there is absolutely no other evidence to link any of the appellants to the crime. 32. 31. When the CCTV footage, DNA test, and the recoveries, for the reasons discussed above, are eschewed from consideration, there is absolutely no other evidence to link any of the appellants to the crime. 32. In view of the above, the prosecution has failed to establish any circumstances by proving them beyond reasonable doubt so as to form a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Hence, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellants. 33. Accordingly, these Criminal Appeals are allowed, the sentence and conviction imposed against the appellants/accused in the judgment dated 11.12.2017, in S.C.No.136 of 2014, passed by the VI Additional District and Session Judge, Godavarikhani, is hereby set aside. Since the appellants/accused are in jail, they shall be released forthwith, if they are not required in any other case.