170 A B C SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 8 S.C.R. prosecutrix) and that “blood had come out from the private part of the girl”. He does not state that tin shade was that of the house of the appellant. However, PW 1 has deposed that “The knicker of my daughter was found on the roof of the accused.” But this is in complete contradiction to the statement of PW 13 who stated that the nicker and the banian were recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement of the appellant. On this issue, further contradiction emerges through the testimony of PW 10 who states that “there were no clothes on her person” but in the very next breath adds that “she had worn underwear on her person”, and also that “he had not seen the body of the deceased girl”. Also, PW 10 states that he cannot read or write in Marathi and that he affixed his signatures on Ext.43 at the police station which is in Marathi. Hence, what is the truth and whom to believe is difficult to infer from the record. Circumstance of Scientific Examination, in particular DNA Report of the Scientific Officer D E F G H 50. We may examine the case from yet another angle and that being, as to whether, even if the recovery on the search conducted on 13.6.2010, 16.6.2010 and 17.6.2010 is believed to be so, either on the basis of information obtained from the police during investigation or as a consequence of statement made by the appellant or any other material obtained by the police during the course of investigation, the same stands linked to the appellant or not. 51. We find on this count the prosecution has not sufficiently proven the case. This is for two reasons : (1) If the alleged house of the appellant was thoroughly searched on 13.6.2010, as is evident from memo Ext.35 and recovery memo Ext.36, then the question of recovery of articles on 16.6.2010 should not arise. The house is nothing but a small room of 8.5 feet x 6.5. feet (out of which a bathroom was 2.5 feet x 2.5 feet), as is evident from Ext.35. The police party in the absence of appellant had microscopically scanned the said room, and yet could not find any material allegedly recovered on 16.6.2010 vide memo Ext.48; (2) Even the recovered articles, be it of the search conducted on 13.6.2010, 16.6.2010 and 17.6.2010, do not sufficiently link the appellant to the crime. For elaboration, we extract herein in a tabular form, the articles recovered, numbered, accepted and the scientific evaluation thereof.