JUDGMENT : MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J. 1.This criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 29.06.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur (for short, ‘learned trial Court’) in Sessions Case No.88/2013 whereby, the accused- appellant (for short, ‘appellant’) has been convicted and sentenced as under: Section 376(2)(i) IPC: Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-; in default whereof, one year additional simple imprisonment. Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-; in default whereof, one year additional simple imprisonment. Section 302 IPC: Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-; in default whereof, one year additional simple imprisonment. Section 201 IPC: Seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default whereof, one year additional simple imprisonment. 2. All the substantive sentences to run concurrently. 3. The relevant facts in brief are that Shri Mahendra Singh (PW1) submitted a written report dated 26.03.2013 at about 8:30 am to the Police Station, Kolari, District Dholpur stating therein that in the midnight of 25-26/03/2013 at about 12’ O clock when, he, alongwith his family, was sleeping in front of his house, he heard a noise whereupon, in torch light, he saw his neighbour- the appellant kidnapping his eight years old daughter from a nearby cot. It was stated that when he raised alarm, his father, mother and wife, sleeping nearby, woke up and also saw the appellant taking away the girl. It was averred that when they all raised hue and cry, Dharmveer, Balveer and whole of the village turned up but, despite search, the appellant and his daughter could not be found. It was alleged that in the morning, when the appellant tried to flee from the sugarcane field behind his house, he was caught by Dharmveer and informed that under intoxication, he has thrown her in the well after her murder. It was further alleged that when the daughter was taken out, it was found that she was raped. Based thereupon, an FIR No.37 dated 26.03.2013 was registered under Sections 302, 201 and 376 IPC and Section 4/6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘Act of 2012’). After investigation, the appellant was charge- sheeted under Sections 302, 376(2)(f), 201 IPC and under Section 4/6 of the Act of 2012. Charges against him were framed under Sections 376 (2)(i), 302, 201 IPC and 4/6 of Act of 2012. After investigation, the appellant was charge- sheeted under Sections 302, 376(2)(f), 201 IPC and under Section 4/6 of the Act of 2012. Charges against him were framed under Sections 376 (2)(i), 302, 201 IPC and 4/6 of Act of 2012. After trial, he has been convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinabove. 4. Assailing the impugned judgment, Shri Vivek Raj Singh Bajwa-learned Senior Counsel-Amicus Curaie, submitted that though, the case is based on circumstantial evidence but, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the complete chain of events leading to irresistible conclusion of his guilt. He submitted that the learned trial Court has, relying upon the testimony of Shri Mahendra Singh (PW1), Smt. Maandai (PW2) and Smt. Samanti (PW3), held that the appellant was seen last in the company of the deceased but, their testimony did not reflect so. Inviting attention of this Court towards their deposition, learned Senior Counsel contended that the same is full of contradictions on the aspect as to where they were sleeping at the relevant time and conspicuously, no site plan of the place from where the girl was allegedly kidnapped, was prepared. He asserts that although, they have claimed to have seen him kidnapping the girl but, surprisingly, they made no attempt to intercept him inasmuch as, as per the prosecution case, he was carrying an averagely built nourished girl of eight years (as per postmortem report- Ex.P16) whereas, her father and other family members had no such handicap. Referring to the site plan (Ex.P2), Shri Bajwa submitted that the place where the dead body of the girl was found is hardly 37 feet away from the house of the complainant; however, as per the prosecution case, whole of the village alongwith family members of the deceased could not trace them for whole of the night. He also argued that the place of incident is a village and it is alleged to have happened in the dead night where even a tiny voice would have carried to a considerable distance; but, surprisingly none heard any noise. He submits that the aforesaid circumstances cast a doubt over veracity of the prosecution case. Learned Senior Counsel contended that although, from the very inception, allegation against him is of kidnapping a minor girl but, neither he was charge-sheeted for any such offence nor, such charges were framed. 5. He submits that the aforesaid circumstances cast a doubt over veracity of the prosecution case. Learned Senior Counsel contended that although, from the very inception, allegation against him is of kidnapping a minor girl but, neither he was charge-sheeted for any such offence nor, such charges were framed. 5. Shri Bajwa submitted that the learned trial Court has erred in relying upon ‘extra-judicial confession’ allegedly made by him to Dharmveer (PW4); however, his testimony, in this regard, is not reliable at all. He contended that the learned trial Court has also relied upon the Forensic Science Laboratory report (Ex.P21) and the DNA report (Ex. P20) to connect him with the alleged offence without appreciating that while, in absence of blood grouping, the Forensic Science Laboratory report was of no consequence, the DNA report could not have been relied upon in absence of any evidence that the samples subjected to DNA profile examination, were kept is safe custody after their seizure till they were deposited in the FSL. Learned Senior Counsel asserted that neither the Malkhana register nor, the Malkhana in-charge was produced in evidence to reflect that in the interregnum, the samples were in safe and sealed condition in absence whereof, no reliance could have been placed on the DNA report. 6. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed, the judgment dated 29.06.2016 be quashed and set aside and he may be acquitted of the charges framed against him. He, to buttress his submissions, relies upon following judgments: 1. Prakash Nishad Vs. State of Maharashtra : (2023) 16 Supreme Court Cases 357 2. Wadla Bheemaraidu Vs. State of Telangana : 2024 SCC Online SC 3589 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, opposing the submissions raised and supporting the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Heard. Considered. 9. Indisputably, the case is based on circumstantial evidence as none has seen commission of the offence. 10. A perusal of the judgment impugned dated 29.06.2016 reflects that the learned trial Court has relied upon following circumstances to connect the appellant with the offence: (1) Last seen (2) Recovery of dead body from the well. (3) Recovery of clothes of the deceased, underwear of the appellant, control soil and blood smeared soil from the place of incident and the traces of blood samples obtained from wooden pieces. (3) Recovery of clothes of the deceased, underwear of the appellant, control soil and blood smeared soil from the place of incident and the traces of blood samples obtained from wooden pieces. (4) Samples of blood and sputum of the appellant and seizure of envelope and slide belonging to deceased. (5) Extra-judicial confession (6) Postmortem report and Doctor’s evidence. (7) Verification of the place of incident on the disclosure statement of the appellant. (8) FSL report and DNA report. 11. So far as ‘last seen’ evidence is concerned, in this regard, the learned trial Court has relied upon the testimony of Shri Mahendra Singh (PW1)-informant and father of the deceased, Smt. Maandai (PW2) and Smt. Samanti (PW3)- mother and grandmother of the deceased respectively. 12. As per the prosecution case, they all saw the appellant taking away the deceased in the midnight of 25-26.03.2013 from the cot she was sleeping on alongwith his family members nearby. As per the written report (Ex.P1), the complainant, alongwith his family members, was sleeping in front of his house when the girl was kidnapped and on raising alarm, his father, mother and wife woke up who were also sleeping nearby. Although, in the written report (Ex. P1), it was averred that all the family members were sleeping in front of their house; however, in his deposition as PW1, he has not disclosed the place where the girl or, they were sleeping except that they all were sleeping nearby to each other. His wife and mother of the deceased-Smt. Maandai (PW2) has stated that they all, including her father in-law and mother in-law, were sleeping inside the house. However, in the same breath, she has stated that her father in-law and mother in-law were sleeping in the backyard. In her cross-examination, she has stated that the deceased was sleeping in the courtyard alongwith her father and the house, in which they were sleeping, had no gate. Taking a totally contradictory stand, Smt. Samanti has stated, in her cross- examination, that she, alongwith her husband, was sleeping outside and his son and daughter in-law were sleeping inside the house with bolted door. She has also stated that the gates were opened by Mahendra Singh from inside. From the aforesaid testimony, it is apparent that their version is not uniform as to where they were sleeping and from where the appellant kidnapped the deceased. She has also stated that the gates were opened by Mahendra Singh from inside. From the aforesaid testimony, it is apparent that their version is not uniform as to where they were sleeping and from where the appellant kidnapped the deceased. Conspicuously, the Investigating Agency has not produced the site plan reflecting the place where they all were sleeping and/or the place of kidnapping. Although, it is trite law that lacuna/deficiency in investigation does not come to rescue of the accused but, in the instant case, in view of the contradictory deposition of the witnesses of ‘last seen’, the site plan definitely would have thrown some light as to the exact place where the witnesses were sleeping and from where the girl was kidnapped in absence whereof, credibility of the prosecution case is rendered doubtful. 13. It is noticeable that while, in the written report (Ex. P1) as also in the deposition of the complainant- Mahendra Singh (PW1), the time of incident is alleged to be at about 12’ O clock in the midnight which is corroborated by Smt. Samanti as PW3. However, mother of the deceased namely Smt. Maandai (PW2) has specifically stated, in her cross-examination, that the kidnapping occurred at about 4:00 am. The learned trial Court has gravely erred in brushing aside this discrepancy casually without appreciating that she has further stated that from 4’ O clock till dawn, despite search, the girl could not be traced. It also casts a doubt on the prosecution case especially in the attending circumstances analyzed hereinabove. 14. Further, from the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses, it is apparent that they all claimed to have seen the appellant kidnapping the girl; however, no effort was made to stop him. Even assuming that the father in-law and mother in-law were sleeping separately, all the witnesses have stated in unison that the deceased was sleeping nearby to her father and mother but, they did not say that they even attempted to intercept the appellant kidnapping the girl or that despite chase, they could not apprehend him. It is highly unnatural conduct on the part of the father and mother of an eight years old girl who was kidnapped in front of them during midnight. It is highly unnatural conduct on the part of the father and mother of an eight years old girl who was kidnapped in front of them during midnight. Moreover, as per the prosecution case, on raising hue and cry by the family members of the deceased, whole of the village gathered but, despite their best efforts, neither the appellant nor, the girl could be traced for the whole night and the appellant was caught only at about 6-7 am. However, as per the site plan (Ex. P2), dead body of the girl was recovered from a well situated at a distance of about 37 feet from the house of the complainant and the girl was raped at about equal distance. This Court finds substance in the submission of learned Senior Counsel that the incident is alleged to have happened in dead of night in the village when even a tiny voice would carry to a long distance but, none heard any noise. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, it appears highly improbable even if not impossible, that despite search by whole of the village including the father and other family members of an eight years old girl, neither the appellant nor, she could be traced for the whole night whereas, they were not more than 40-50 feet away from the place of kidnapping. 15. In the conspectus of aforesaid evidence, we are not convinced that PW1, PW2 and PW3 have seen the appellant kidnapping the deceased. Furthermore, the prosecution could offer no explanation as to why the appellant was neither charge- sheeted for the offence of kidnapping nor, was tried for it despite specific allegation. 16. So far as recovery of dead body of the girl from the well is concerned, it is undoubted but, the learned trial Court has recorded no finding to connect the appellant with the recovery. 17. The third circumstance relied upon by the learned trial Court pertains to recovery of clothes of the deceased, underwear of the accused, control soil, blood smeared soil from the place of incident and traces of blood stains from the wooden pieces. The learned trial Court has held that recovery was established beyond doubt but, again, did not record a finding as to how the appellant was connected with the offence on the strength of these recoveries. The learned trial Court has held that recovery was established beyond doubt but, again, did not record a finding as to how the appellant was connected with the offence on the strength of these recoveries. Furthermore, we are not convinced that the recovery of clothes of the deceased is free from suspicion. The aforesaid clothes were recovered vide Ex. P15. While, one of the witnesses to the seizure memo namely Pooran (PW15) has stated that a salwar was recovered by the police, another witness Jagram (PW16) has deposed that an underwear as also a salwar was recovered vide Ex. P15. However, both these have stated during their cross- examination that the Ex. P15 was not prepared in their presence but, their signature were obtained on blank paper. Therefore, recovery is rendered doubtful. Even otherwise, as per Forensic Science Laboratory report dated 23.10.2013 (Ex.P21), nothing could be deduced either from blood smeared soil or, from control soil or, from wooden pieces or, from underwear of the accused so as to connect him with the alleged offence. 18. The learned trial Court has held that the prosecution has been able to establish seizure of sample of the blood and sputum of the accused and envelope and slide belonging to the deceased. 19. So far as seizure of the samples of blood and sputum of the accused is concerned, the prosecution could not establish as to who had collected the samples and when. Indisputably, the accused was medically examined by Dr. Anuj Gupta (PW18) to test his potency to do sex and as per his report (Ex.P17), he was found potent. But, neither the Ex. P17 reflects that his blood and sputum samples were collected during his examination nor, Dr. Anuj Gupta has stated so in his deposition. Shri Sharwan Kumar (PW6), an Assistant Sub-Inspector at Police Station Kolari at the relevant time, has deposed that he brought the aforesaid samples for DNA test from the Sadar Hospital, Dholpur. However, as already held, it is not established as to when these samples were collected and by whom. However, as per Ex. P7, two samples belonging to the appellant were brought to the police station on 28.03.2013 whereas, as per Ex. However, as already held, it is not established as to when these samples were collected and by whom. However, as per Ex. P7, two samples belonging to the appellant were brought to the police station on 28.03.2013 whereas, as per Ex. P8, two more samples of the appellant were brought to the police station on 29.03.2013 and the prosecution has offered no explanation as to when these were collected, who collected them and why the samples were brought on two different occasions from the same place, i.e., the Sadar Hospital. 20. We find that as per the postmortem report dated 26.03.2013 (Ex. P16), at that time, two vaginal smear slides were taken and sealed for FSL but, as per the testimony of S/Shri Ramraj Singh (PW11)- LC in the CO Office, Saipau and Shivkant (PW12)- LC, Police Station Kolari, they have brought two sealed envelopes on 05.04.2013 from the hospital. However, the prosecution has miserably failed to offer any explanation as to why there was inordinate delay in bringing the samples from the hospital as also that in the interregnum, the samples were in safe custody. 21. In view thereof, we are not convinced that the aforesaid recoveries are free from doubt and help the prosecution case. 22. The next circumstance relied upon by the learned trial Court is ‘extra-judical confession’ by the appellant. The learned trial Court has held that it was made before the PW1, PW2, PW3 and (PW4). While, Mahendra Singh (PW1) has stated that when they caught the appellant in the morning, he informed that he has murdered the girl. Smt. Maandai (PW2) has deposed that when body of the girl was taken out from the well by the police and villagers, the appellant informed that he has murdered her and has pushed her in the well. Smt. Samanti (PW3) has stated that when they caught the appellant, he has informed that he subjected her to rape and after killing her, threw her in the well. Shri Dharmveer has stated as PW4 that he and Rewati had caught the Raghuveer first and upon asking, he informed that he raped her under intoxication and after killing her, threw her in the well. Shri Dharmveer has stated as PW4 that he and Rewati had caught the Raghuveer first and upon asking, he informed that he raped her under intoxication and after killing her, threw her in the well. However, during his cross-examination, he has stated that it was wrong that only two of them were present but, whole of the village comprising of 50-100 person were present at the time the appellant was caught. Shri Rewati as PW14, has stated nothing about extra-judicial confession. In view of the aforesaid contradictory testimony, we are of the view that the learned trial Court erred in holding the appellant guilty of the alleged offence on the basis of such weak and sketchy piece of evidence. 23. So far as postmortem report and opinion of the Doctor is concerned, no doubt that the girl has died unnatural death. However, it is prosecution case that she was first murdered and thereafter thrown in the well which stands corroborated from the postmortem report (Ex. P16) which shows that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. However, there are injuries on whole of the body including fracture of both femur bones as also fracture of frontal bone and hematoma in fronto-parietal region but, the prosecution is completely silent as to either the manner in which the appellant inflicted injuries on her body or, the weapon of offence allegedly used which casts a doubt on the prosecution story. 24. Lastly, the learned trial Court has relied upon the FSL and DNA report to record that as per the DNA report (Ex. P20), the source of male DNA (Ex. P2) (underwear of the deceased) matched with the source of Ex. P3 (blood sample of the appellant). However, as already held, the prosecution has not been able to prove as to who collected the blood sample of the appellant as also when? Further, the FSL report reflects that the samples were received through receipt no.3553 dated 01.04.2013 but, no such receipt has been produced on record. Shri Gyan Singh (PW9), a Constable at Police Station, Kolari at the relevant time, has stated that on 09.05.2013, he got eight sealed packets from the police station and deposited the same with the FSL, Jaipur on 10.05.2013 vide Ex. P10. The Ex. P10 reflects the receipt no.5408/2013 containing eight packets and not the receipt no.3553. Shri Gyan Singh (PW9), a Constable at Police Station, Kolari at the relevant time, has stated that on 09.05.2013, he got eight sealed packets from the police station and deposited the same with the FSL, Jaipur on 10.05.2013 vide Ex. P10. The Ex. P10 reflects the receipt no.5408/2013 containing eight packets and not the receipt no.3553. Not only that the relevant receipt was not filed but, the prosecution case is completely silent as to who has deposited these packets with the FSL and where they were kept before the same were deposited on 01.04.2013. In the conspectus of aforesaid evidence, the DNA report is rendered of no help to the prosecution. 25. Their Lordships have held, while dealing with an identical situation in the case of Prakash Nishad (supra), as under: “ 60 . 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." 61 . 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." 62 . 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." 62 . Indisputably, these "without any delay" and "chain of custody" aspects which are indispensable to the vitality of such evidence, were not complied with. In such a situation, this Court cannot hold the DNA Report Ext. 85 to be so dependable as to send someone to the gallows on this basis.” 26. In the case of Wadla Bheemaraidu (supra), held as under: “ 34 . The third link of circumstantial evidence is that the recovered skeletal remains were purportedly matched with the blood of the mother of the deceased (PW-1) by the process of DNA profiling. However, as has been noted above, PW-1 did not utter a single word that her blood sample was collected by the Investigating Officer (PW-22) during the course of the investigation. Also, even Dr. Syed Irshad, Medical Officer (PW-15) did not state that he collected the blood samples of PW-1. Thus, the DNA profiling report pales into insignificance and cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance against the accused.” 27. So far as FSL report dated 23.10.2013 (Ex. P21) is concerned, we have already recorded a finding that the same does not take the prosecution case any farther. 28. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we are not convinced that the prosecution has been able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the complete chain of events leading to the irresistible conclusion only of the guilt of the appellant. 29. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 29.06.2016 is quashed and set aside. 30. Since, the appellant is in custody, he be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. 31. 29. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 29.06.2016 is quashed and set aside. 30. Since, the appellant is in custody, he be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. 31. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC (Section 481 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the appellant namely Raghuveer Son Of Shri Lakhan Singh is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and a surety in the like amount within four weeks before the Registrar (Judl.) of this Court which shall be effective for a period of six months with the stipulation that in that event of Special Leave Petition being filed against the judgement or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 32. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. 33. We put on record a note of appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Shri Vivek Raj Bajwa-learned Senior Counsel-Amicus Curiae.