Judgment : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment & order dated 25-1- 2018 passed by the 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti in Sessions Trial No.32/2016, by which the appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Sections 302 (two times) & 201 (two times) of the IPC and sentenced as under with a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently: - Conviction Sentence Section 302 of the IPC (two times for causing murder of Nankiram & Nankibai) Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 500/- on two counts, in default, additional simple imprisonment for one month, on two counts. Section 201 of the IPC (two times) Rigorous imprisonment for five years Rs. with fine of 500/- on two counts, in default, additional simple imprisonment for one month, on two counts 2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that the appellant herein in between 1-7-2015 and 31-7-2015 at Village Chandeladih, Police Station Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa, caused the death of his father Nankiram Sidar (D-1) and his step-mother Nankibai Lohar (D-2) by making assault by axe and thereby committed their murder and in order to screen himself from the offence, buried the dead bodies under the compost pit in his house and thereby committed the offence. It is not in dispute that deceased Nankiram Sidar (D-1) was the father of the appellant and deceased Nankibai Lohar (D-2) was the step- mother of the appellant and since Nankiram Sidar (D-1) has entered into second marriage with Nankibai Lohar (D-2), who is of other caste, the appellant has left his father’s house and D-1 & D-2, both were living together and the appellant was residing with his cousin Jhadu Sidar (PW-3). Thereafter, on being called by his father Nankiram Sidar (D-1), the appellant started living with his father and all of a sudden, immediately prior to the date of offence, the appellant came to Jhaduram (PW-3) and left the premises giving him the keys of his house citing that his father & mother had gone out of the village for earning their livelihood and he is also going. 3. 3. In the year 2016, the appellant came back to the village and he was taken into custody by Police Station Malkharoda under Crime No.127/2016 for offence punishable under Sections 457 & 380 of the IPC and in that case, Investigating Officer Shivnath Tandon (PW-15) recorded the memorandum statement of the appellant vide Ex.P-38 on 18-6-2016 in which the appellant has disclosed that he has committed the murder of his father (D-1) & mother (D-2) while they were sleeping and buried the dead bodies under the compost pit of his house. Thereafter, vide Ex.P-40, Investigating Officer of the present case K.P. Gupta (PW-17) made a request for police remand of the accused/ appellant to the remand court alleging that the accused in the present case has killed his father & mother and buried the dead bodies in the compost pit and remand was granted by the jurisdictional criminal court. Accordingly, vide Ex.P-41, Investigating Officer K.P. Gupta (PW-17) wrote a letter to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sakti for appointment of Executive Magistrate for exhumation of the dead bodies and thereafter, vide Ex.P-36, the SDM, Sakti has appointed Mr. A.R. Khan, Tahsildar, Malkharoda for exhumation of the dead bodies and vide Ex.P-27, on 19-6-2016, mouka panchnama i.e. panchanama of the place of incident was prepared and vide Ex.P-28, dead bodies were exhumed. Identification panchnama of the dead bodies of D-1 & D-2 was prepared vide Ex.P-12 by Investigating Officer K.P. Gupta (PW-17). Inquest over the dead bodies of both the deceased persons was conducted vide Exs.P-16 & P-17 and dehati merg was prepared vide Exs.P-44 & P-45. Male dead body/skeleton was identified as Nankiram Sidar (D-1) through hair, baniyan, underwear & gamcha and female dead body/skeleton was identified as Nankibai Lohar (D-2) through hair, green colour sari, bangles & mala. Thereafter, vide Ex.P- 29, memorandum of the appellant was recorded pursuant to which axe (weapon of offence) was recovered vide Ex.P-30 and the same was sent for chemical analysis to the Regional FSL, Bilaspur, however, no blood much less human blood was found on it vide FSL report Ex.P-65. 4. Dr. Hemant Sahu (PW-10) conducted postmortem over the dead bodies/bones of both the deceased persons and according to him, he separated the dead bodies/bones of both male and female deceased persons and conducted postmortem separately. 4. Dr. Hemant Sahu (PW-10) conducted postmortem over the dead bodies/bones of both the deceased persons and according to him, he separated the dead bodies/bones of both male and female deceased persons and conducted postmortem separately. Autopsy report relating to deceased Nankiram Sidar (D-1) is Ex.P-34 and autopsy report relating to deceased Nankibai Lohar (D-2) is Ex.P-33. However, no definite opinion has been given by the autopsy surgeon and in order to ascertain the cause of death and whether male or female, the dead bodies/ bones and other seized articles were sent to the Medical College Hospital, Raipur vide Exs.P-1 & P-2. Vide Ex.P-7, Dr. Snigdha Jain (PW-1), Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Pt. J.N.M. Medical College, Raipur, in reply to the query report that whether the skeletons are of male or female, has opined that the skeletons brought before her were of male and female both. Vide Ex.P-51, the Station House Officer wrote a letter to the SDO, Sakti for grant of permission for collection of blood of Smt. Pitar Bai, D/o Nankiram Sidar, and that of Bhuneshwari Lohar, D/o Nankibai Lohar for DNA test pursuant to which permission was granted and vide Ex.P-52, the SHO wrote a letter to the Block Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Malkharoda for collection of blood for DNA test. Accordingly, blood samples of Smt. Pitar Bai, D/o Nankiram Sidar, and Bhuneshwari Lohar, D/o Nankibai Lohar were taken by Dr. Krishna Kumar Sidar, CHC, Malkharoda and sealed and the same were seized vide Ex.P-53 and sent for DNA profiling. According to the DNA test report Ex.P-55, blood sample of Smt. Pitar Bai was found matching with the bones of Nankiram Sidar (D-1) and thus, Nankiram Sidar was the biological father of Smt. Pitar Bai, however, blood sample of Bhuneshwari Lohar was not found similar/identical and not matching with the bones of Nankibai Lohar (D-2) and accordingly, a finding was returned that deceased Nankiram Sidar (D-1) was the biological father of Smt. Pitar Bai while deceased Nankibai Lohar (D-2) was not the biological mother of Bhuneshwari Lohar. 5. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. 5. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. After due investigation, the accused/appellant was charge-sheeted for offence under Sections 302 (two times) & 201 (two times) of the IPC and charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Janjgir-Champa, from where the learned 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, received the case on transfer for conducting trial and hearing and disposal in accordance with law. 6. The accused/appellant abjured the guilt and entered into defence. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as seventeen witnesses and exhibited 66 documents apart from Article A-1, an envelope containing CD. The defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document, in support of its case. 7. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant under Sections 302 (two times) and 201 (two times) of the IPC in the manner mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC has been preferred. 8. Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that the bones recovered allegedly of Nankiram Sidar (D-1) & Nankibai Lohar (D-2) were not recovered pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant as the memorandum was recorded in Crime No.127/2016 and the bones and the weapon of offence were already disclosed during the first memorandum recorded by Investigating Officer Shivnath Tandon (PW-15) vide Ex.P-38 and therefore same cannot be re-recovered pursuant to the second memorandum Ex.P-29 proved by K.P. Gupta (PW-17) and as such, the alleged bones and the weapon of offence cannot be said to be recovered pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant. So far as the DNA test report of Bhuneshwari Lohar, D/o Nankibai Lohar is concerned, it has not been found matching with the bones recovered allegedly of Nankibai Lohar (D-2) and therefore same is of no use to the prosecution. So far as the DNA test report of Smt. Pitar Bai, D/o Nankiram Sidar (D-1), is concerned, Dr. So far as the DNA test report of Bhuneshwari Lohar, D/o Nankibai Lohar is concerned, it has not been found matching with the bones recovered allegedly of Nankibai Lohar (D-2) and therefore same is of no use to the prosecution. So far as the DNA test report of Smt. Pitar Bai, D/o Nankiram Sidar (D-1), is concerned, Dr. Krishna Kumar Sidar, who has taken the blood sample of Smt. Pitar Bai and proved the same, has not been examined by the prosecution for the good reason known to it and there is no evidence on record that the blood sample, which was taken on 4-11-2016 and sent for DNA examination to the FSL, Raipur having received by the FSL (DNA Unit) vide Ex.P-55 on 7-11-2016 & 20-3-2017, was kept in safe custody from 4-11-2016 to 7-11-2016/20-3-2017 and chances of tampering with the seized blood sample cannot be ruled out, even the Senior Scientific Officer who has conducted the DNA profiling was not examined to prove the authenticity of the DNA profiling. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the motive of the offence is also not established. In that view of the matter, the appellant is entitled for acquittal and as such, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 9. Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/respondent, would oppose the appeal and support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He would further submit that taking into consideration the DNA profiling report of Smt. Pitar Bai, D/o Nankiram Sidar (D-1), it is quite established from the evidence brought on record that the prosecution has fully proved the offence against the appellant and therefore the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 11. Case of the prosecution is not based on direct evidence, it is based on circumstantial evidence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution was required to establish the five golden principles which constitute the panchsheel of a case as laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 in which it has been held in paragraph 153 as under: - “153. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution was required to establish the five golden principles which constitute the panchsheel of a case as laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 in which it has been held in paragraph 153 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.” 12.The trial Court in order to convict the appellant under Sections 302 (twice) & 201 (twice) of the IPC has culled out the following five incriminating circumstances in paragraph 54 of the judgment which reads as under: - 13.In order to judge the correctness of the finding returned by the trial Court, we will consider each and every circumstance one by one so as to reach to a logical conclusion and to decide the appeal. Since the first three incriminating circumstances, No.1 to 3, are interlinked with each other, we will take-up them together. Circumstances No.1 to 3 14.It is the case of the prosecution that during investigation in Crime No.127/2016 registered at Police Station Malkharoda for offence punishable under Sections 457 & 380 of the IPC, the appellant was taken into custody and his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P-38 in which he has disclosed the commission of offence of double murder of his father Nankiram Sidar (D-1) & his step-mother Nankibai Lohar (D-2) with the aid of axe which led to investigation by Shivnath Tandon (PW-15) and Investigating Officer of the present case K.P. Gupta (PW-17) made application for police remand of the appellant before the remand court in Crime No.127/2016 which was granted and thereafter, he made request to the SDM, Sakti for exhumation of the dead bodies. Subsequently, mouka panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-27 and dead bodies exhumation panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-28 and dead bodies/bones/skeletons were recovered which have been proved by Kartikram (PW-7). Separate offence was registered vide Crime No.129/2016 and this time, the Investigating Officer was K.P. Gupta (PW-17). Thereafter, a separate memorandum statement was recorded in Crime No.129/2016 vide Ex.P-29 pursuant to which axe – the weapon of offence, was seized from the appellant vide Ex.P-13. 15.The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan v. Bhup Singh (1997) 10 SCC 675 has held that recovery of weapon on the basis of statement made by accused during investigation in another case is admissible in evidence and it is immaterial whether the information was supplied in connection with the same crime or a different crime. It has been observed by their Lordships as under: - “14. … The conditions prescribed in Section 27 for unwrapping the cover of ban against admissibility of statement of the accused to the police have been satisfied. They are: (1) A fact should have been discovered in consequence of information received from the accused; (2) he should have been accused of an offence; (3) he should have been in the custody of a police officer when he supplied the information; (4) the fact so discovered should have been deposed to by the witness. They are: (1) A fact should have been discovered in consequence of information received from the accused; (2) he should have been accused of an offence; (3) he should have been in the custody of a police officer when he supplied the information; (4) the fact so discovered should have been deposed to by the witness. If these conditions are satisfied, that part of the information given by the accused which led to such discovery gets denuded of the wrapper of prohibition and it becomes admissible in evidence. It is immaterial whether the information was supplied in connection with the same crime or a different crime. ...” 16.Similarly, in the matter of Kaliya v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2013) 10 SCC 758 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down the principles as to when secondary evidence relating to document with reference to Sections 63, 65 & 32(1) of the Evidence Act, 1872 is permissible and held that a party must adduce primary evidence first and only in exceptional cases is secondary evidence permissible. Their Lordships further held that secondary evidence can be adduced relating to a document only when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason, not arising from his own default, or neglect, produce it in reasonable time. It has also been held by their Lordships that mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof, nor mere marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof, which is otherwise required to be done in accordance with law. 17.Coming to the facts of the case, in the instant case, first memorandum was recorded in Crime No.127/2016 by Shivnath Tandon (PW-15) in which the appellant has given memorandum statement that he has caused the death of his father & step mother and has also buried the dead bodies under the compost pit and also kept the weapon of offence axe therein, thereby he has disclosed the fact of murder. However, thereafter, the Investigating Officer (PW-17) requested remand of the appellant to the jurisdictional court which was granted and a separate case was registered under Crime No.129/2016 at Police Station Malkharoda in which exhumation panchnama was recorded and dead bodies were recovered and second memorandum statement was recorded. However, thereafter, the Investigating Officer (PW-17) requested remand of the appellant to the jurisdictional court which was granted and a separate case was registered under Crime No.129/2016 at Police Station Malkharoda in which exhumation panchnama was recorded and dead bodies were recovered and second memorandum statement was recorded. However, the first memorandum statement which was recorded vide Ex.P-38 is only a photocopy of the original document recorded in Crime No.127/2016 i.e. other than the present offence. The prosecution ought to have made factual foundation for not producing the original to treat it as a secondary evidence and it ought to have come up with the reason why the original could not be produced vide Ex.P-38, which the prosecution has not done for the reasons best known to it. Though the document has been exhibited as Ex.P-38, but mere marking of a document as exhibit does not dispense with its proof and photocopy of a document is not admissible in evidence unless the foundation is made for producing the photocopy and not producing the original. Apart from that, recovery of dead bodies was not made pursuant to the memorandum statement recorded vide Ex.P-38, rather dead bodies/skeletons were recovered on the basis of dead body exhumation panchnama recorded in Crime No.129/2016 vide Ex.P-28. Furthermore, weapon of offence axe has already been recovered vide Ex.P-38 in Crime No.127/2016. Thus, the weapon once discovered cannot be rediscovered and as such, the second memorandum statement recorded vide Ex.P-29 is also inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, we reject the theory of memorandum that the dead bodies/skeletons were recovered pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant. 18.As per the statement of Dr. Hemant Sahu (PW-10), skeletons were brought for postmortem which were identified by Jhaduram Sidar (PW-3) & Harnarayan Sidar (PW-4). Dr. Hemant Sahu (PW-10) has further stated in his statement before the Court that he has separated the bones of male & female and thereafter conducted postmortem. He has also stated that since there were number of bones and they were in pieces, they could not be identified and they were packed and sealed and sent to the Medical College for DNA profiling. 19. He has also stated that since there were number of bones and they were in pieces, they could not be identified and they were packed and sealed and sent to the Medical College for DNA profiling. 19. In the matter of Rama Nand and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1981) 1 SCC 511 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held in no uncertain terms that discovery of the dead body of the victim bearing physical evidence of violence, has never been considered as the only mode of proving the corpus delicti in murder. Their Lordships further held that the ‘body’ doctrine is merely a rule of caution and not of law. It has also been held that where the dead body of the victim in a murder is not found, other cogent and satisfactory proof of homicidal death of the victim must be adduced by the prosecution. But where the fact of corpus delicti or homicidal death is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence alone, or by both, the circumstances must be of a clinching and definitive character unerringly leading to the inference that the victim concerned has met a homicidal death. Their Lordships observed as under:- “28. This means that before seeking to prove that the ac- cused is the perpetrator of the murder, it must be estab- lished that homicidal death has been caused. Ordinarily, the recovery of the dead body of the victim or a vital part of it, bearing marks of violence, is sufficient proof of homi- cidal death of the victim. There was a time when under the old English law, the finding of the body of the deceased was held to be essential before a person was convicted of committing his culpable homicide. “I would never convict,” said Sir Mathew Hale, “a person of murder or manslaughter unless the fact were proved to be done, or at least the body was found dead.” This was merely a rule of caution, and not of law. But in those times when execu- tion was the only punishment for murder, the need for ad- hering to this cautionary rule was greater. Discovery of the dead body of the victim bearing physical evidence of vi- olence, has never been considered as the only mode of proving the corpus delicti in murder. But in those times when execu- tion was the only punishment for murder, the need for ad- hering to this cautionary rule was greater. Discovery of the dead body of the victim bearing physical evidence of vi- olence, has never been considered as the only mode of proving the corpus delicti in murder. Indeed, very many cases are of such a nature where the discovery of the dead body is impossible. A blind adherence to this old “body” doctrine would open the door wide open for many a heinous murderer to escape with impunity simply because they were cunning and clever enough to destroy the body of their victim. In the context of our law, Sir Hale’s enun- ciation has to be interpreted no more than emphasising that where the dead body of the victim in a murder case is not found, other cogent and satisfactory proof of the homi- cidal death of the victim must be adduced by the prosecu- tion. Such proof may be by the direct ocular account of an eyewitness, or by circumstantial evidence, or by both. But where the fact of corpus delicti i.e. ‘homicidal death’ is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence alone, the circumstances must be of a clinching and definitive character unerringly leading to the inference that the vic- tim concerned has met a homicidal death. Even so, this principle of caution cannot be pushed too far as requiring absolute proof. Perfect proof is seldom to be had in this imperfect world, and absolute certainty is a myth. That is why under Section 3, Evidence Act, a fact is said to be “proved”, if the court considering the matters before it, considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. The corpus delicti or the fact of homicidal death, therefore, can be proved by telling and inculpating circumstances which definitely lead to the conclusion that within all human probability, the victim has been murdered by the accused concerned. The corpus delicti or the fact of homicidal death, therefore, can be proved by telling and inculpating circumstances which definitely lead to the conclusion that within all human probability, the victim has been murdered by the accused concerned. …” 20.The principle of law laid down in Rama Nand (supra) has been reiterated and followed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ramjee Rai and others v. State of Bihar (2006) 13 SCC 229 7 2013 and similar proposition has been made in the matter of Rishi Pal v. State of Uttarakhand 2013 Cri.L.J. 1534 following Rama Nand (supra) and it has been held that absence of corpus delicti is insignificant if cogent and satisfactory proof of homicidal death of victim is adduced. The decision of the Supreme Court in Rama Nand (supra) has further been followed in the matter of Sanjay Rajak v. State of Bihar (2019) 12 SCC 552 21.However, in the matter of S. Kaleeswaran v. State by the Inspector of Police Pollachi Town East Police Station, Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu2022 SCC OnLine SC 1511 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have made exception to the rule of corpus delicti that if the entire chain is duly proved by cogent evidence, the conviction could be recorded even if the corpus is not found, but when as per the case of the prosecution, the dead body of the victim was discovered from the place shown by the accused, it is imperative on the part of the prosecution to prove that the dead body or the skeleton found at the instance of the accused was that of the victim and of none else, and it was held as under: - “14. … but when as per the case of the prosecution, the dead body of the victim was discovered from the place shown by the accused, it is imperative on the part of the prosecution to prove that the dead body or the skeleton found at the instance of the accused was that of the victim and of none else.” 22.In the matter of Rambraksh alias Jalim v. State of Chhattisgarh (2016) 12 SCC 251 , the Supreme Court has held that the investigating officer did not take any attempt to conduct DNA analysis of bones to prove that the skeleton seized was that of Ramsevak and their Lordships have held that the prosecution has failed to prove the death of Ramsevak either homicidal or otherwise. 23.Similarly, in the matter of Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 12 SCC 460 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court referring to Sections 53-A and 164-A of the CrPC, held that DNA profiling has now become a part of the statutory scheme and for the prosecution to decline to produce DNA evidence would be a little unfortunate particularly when the facility of DNA profiling is available in the country, and observed in paragraphs 54, 55 & 56 as under: - “54. For the prosecution to decline to produce DNA evidence would be a little unfortunate particularly when the facility of DNA profiling is available in the country. The prosecution would be well advised to take advantage of this, particularly in view of the provisions of Section 53- A and Section 164-A of the CrPC. We are not going to the extent of suggesting that if there is no DNA profiling, the prosecution case cannot be proved but we are certainly of the view that where DNA profiling has not been done or it is held back from the trial court, an adverse consequence would follow for the prosecution. 55. In Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) 6 SCC 1 a separate opinion was delivered by Banumathi, J. and in para 455 of the Report it was held that DNA profiling is an extremely accurate way of comparing specimens and such testing can make a virtually positive identification. It was stated: “455. 55. In Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) 6 SCC 1 a separate opinion was delivered by Banumathi, J. and in para 455 of the Report it was held that DNA profiling is an extremely accurate way of comparing specimens and such testing can make a virtually positive identification. It was stated: “455. … DNA profiling is an extremely accurate way to compare a suspect’s DNA with crime scene specimens, victim’s DNA on the bloodstained clothes of the accused or other articles recovered, DNA testing can make a virtually positive identification when the two samples match. A DNA fingerprint is identical for every part of the body, whether it is the blood, saliva, brain, kidney or foot or any part of the body. It cannot be changed; it will be identical no matter what is done to a body. Even relatively minute quantities of blood, saliva or semen at a crime scene or on clothes can yield sufficient material for analysis. The experts opine that the identification is almost hundred per cent precise. Using this i.e. chemical structure of genetic information by generating DNA profile of the individual, identification of an individual is done like in the traditional method of identifying finger prints of offenders.” (emphasis supplied) 56. In the context of importance of scientific and technological advances having been made, we may recall the observation of this Court in Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263 in para 220 of the Report that “The matching of DNA samples is emerging as a vital tool for linking suspects to specific criminal acts.”“ 24.The Supreme Court in the matter of Pattu Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2019) 4 SCC 771 has held that though a DNA test helps the courts immensely in determining reliability of identification of body of deceased, but rejected the contention that non-conducting of a DNA test and reliance on evidence regarding identification through superimposition is improper. It has been observed in paragraph 57 of the report as under: - “57. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the scientific evidence of PW 34 was rightly believed by the trial court as well as by the High Court, and strengthens the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 regarding the identification of the body. It has been observed in paragraph 57 of the report as under: - “57. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the scientific evidence of PW 34 was rightly believed by the trial court as well as by the High Court, and strengthens the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 regarding the identification of the body. Though a DNA test would have helped the courts immensely in determining the reliability of the identification of the body of the deceased, in the presence of other reliable evidence on record in favour of the prosecution version on this aspect, we reject the contention that the non-conducting of a DNA test and the reliance on evidence regarding identification through superimposition is improper. This is all the more true since no material is forthcoming to the effect that the parents of the deceased were alive during the relevant period, so as to conduct comparative DNA tests.” 25.Coming to the facts of the case, as per the advise of doctor, blood samples of Smt. Pitar Bai, daughter of Nankiram Sidar (D-1), and Bhuneshwari Lohar & Rameshwari Bai, both daughters of Nankibai Lohar (D-2), were taken and put to match with the DNA of the bones of Nankiram Sidar (D-1) & Nankibai Lohar (D-2) and it was held vide FSL report Ex.P-55 that Nankiram Sidar (D-1) is the biological father of Smt. Pitar Bai, whereas, Nankibai Lohar (D-2) is not the biological mother of Bhuneshwari Lohar & Rameshwari Bai. As such, the DNA profiling so far as Nankibai Lohar (D-2), is of no use. 26.Now, in this regard, two submissions have been made by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant. Firstly, the doctor who has taken the blood samples of Smt. Pitar Bai on 4-11-2016 was not examined. Though Smt. Pitar Bai has been examined as PW-2, but she has not stated in her statement before the Court that her blood sample was taken. The doctor who has taken blood and conducted blood test has also not been examined. It is the second submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the officer who has conducted DNA profiling and put the blood samples to match with the DNA of bones of both the deceased persons and who has submitted the DNA test report vide Ex.P-55 i.e. Mr. It is the second submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the officer who has conducted DNA profiling and put the blood samples to match with the DNA of bones of both the deceased persons and who has submitted the DNA test report vide Ex.P-55 i.e. Mr. Kuldeep Kujur, Senior Scientific Officer-cum-Assistant Chemical Examiner, DNA Unit, State FSL, Raipur, has also not been examined and no opportunity of cross-examination has been given to the accused/appellant. Thus, on both the counts, the DNA profiling is of no use. 27.True it is that Smt. Pitar Bai, who has been examined as PW-2, has not stated in her evidence that her blood was taken and sample was collected, and secondly, Dr. Krishna Kumar Sidar, CHC, Malkharoda, who has taken the blood sample of Smt. Pitar Bai has not been examined for the reasons best known to the prosecution. 28.The bones allegedly of Nankiram Sidar (D-1) recovered were purportedly matched with the blood of the daughter of D-1 namely Smt. Pitar Bai (PW-2) by the process of DNA profiling. However, as stated above, PW-2 did not utter a single word that her blood sample was collected by the Investigating Officer or the doctor during the course of investigation and moreover, the doctor who has taken/collected the blood sample of PW-2 was not examined. Thus, the DNA profiling report (Ex.P-55) pales into insignificance and cannot be treated as an piece of incriminating circumstance against the accused (see Wadla Bheemaraidu v. State of Telangana 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3589 ). 29.Similarly, non-examination of the scientific expert who carried out the DNA profiling is also fatal to the prosecution (see Karandeep Sharma alias Razia alias Raju v. State of Uttarakhand 2025 SCC OnLine SC 773 , paragraph 40 and Rahul v. State of Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs (2023) 1 SCC 83 ). 30.Furthermore, blood sample of Smt. Pitar Bai was taken on 4-11- 2016 by Dr. Krishna Kumar Sidar, but it was received by the FSL on 7-11-2016, however, the chain of custody of the seized blood sample has not been maintained. 31.In that view of the matter, for the reasons stated aforesaid, the DNA profiling report Ex.P-55 cannot be relied upon to base the conviction of the appellant herein. Krishna Kumar Sidar, but it was received by the FSL on 7-11-2016, however, the chain of custody of the seized blood sample has not been maintained. 31.In that view of the matter, for the reasons stated aforesaid, the DNA profiling report Ex.P-55 cannot be relied upon to base the conviction of the appellant herein. Circumstance No.4 32.The fourth incriminating circumstance culled by the trial Court against the appellant is that as per the FSL Report, baniyan, underwear, gamcha of Nankiram Sidar (D-1), rope recovered from the spot, sari, blouse, petticoat of Nankibai Lohar (D-2), rope recovered from the spot and hairs of Nankibai Lohar (D-2), were found stained with blood. These articles were recovered from the spot and not recovered pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant. As such, this circumstance is also not of any use to the prosecution. Circumstance No.5 – Motive 33.The last circumstance i.e. motive of the offence that deceased Nankibai Lohar (D-2) was the step-mother of the appellant being the second wife of his father deceased Nankiram Sidar (D- 1) and also of other caste, therefore, the appellant was unhappy and thus, caused the murder of both the deceased persons father & step-mother. This kind of motive relied upon by the trial Court has not born-out from the record and it is insignificant and also cannot be treated as an incriminating circumstance against the accused. 34.As such, for the foregoing reasons, the prosecution has not been able to prove the incriminating circumstances against the appellant in line with the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra). As such, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 35. In that view of the matter, conviction and sentences imposed upon the appellant under Sections 302 (two times) & 201 (two times) of the IPC are liable to be set aside and they are hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the said charges. He is in jail since 20-6-2016. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 36.The criminal appeal stands allowed. 37.Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned and to the Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is lodged and suffering jail sentence, forthwith for necessary information and action, if any.