154 A B C SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 8 S.C.R. understand the case of the prosecution against him. Inability to do so, by virtue of a language barrier causes prejudice to the case of the appellant. There is nothing on record to show that it was not practicable to record evidence of the appellant as well as others, whose vernacular was not Marathi, but Hindi. The original testimony, from which the text, tenor and true import of their testimony may be gauged, is not part of the record. Therefore, it is apparent that statutory safeguards in reference to language have not been complied with, causing prejudice to the appellant in terms of Syed Qasim Rizvi. [Para 45][168-F-H; 169-A] Syed Qasim Razvi v. State of Hyderabad 1953 SCR 589 – followed. Siju Kurian v. State of Karnataka 2023 SCC OnLine 429 – distinguished. D E F G H 1.2 No blood of the appellant was found on any one of the articles recovered by the police. Only stains of semen were found on the nicker (brown) belonging to the prosecutrix and her vaginal swabs. Samples of the blood and semen of the appellant were sent for forensic analysis. Importantly though, there is nothing on record to establish as to who took such samples, on what date, on how many occasions and why were they not sent all at once, none of the police officials have testified to the formalities of keeping the samples safe and secure being complied with. There is only one document (Ext.79) on record, indicating the appellant to have been medically examined. But even this document does not reveal sample of the body part being drawn. In any event, the doctor who conducted such examination, has not stepped into the witness box to testify the correctness of the contents thereof. Also the document itself is uninspiring confidence as this Court notices certain interpolations therein and in a different hand. Additionally, the document does not fall true to the statutory requirements imposed under Section 53A Cr.P.C.Here, a child of the tender age of six was assaulted brutally and killed. The appellant was arrested on suspicion of having committed the crime. The police proceeded in accordance therewith and were supposed to have made discoveries as per the statements made by the appellant in custody, then in what manner can it be said