27 20. In these appeals Mr. B. H. Marlapalle, learned Senior Advocate appeared as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused. His principal submissions were:a) In the face of glaring inconsistencies in the version given by PW5 Ujjawal and in the face of record as it stood, it would be extremely hazardous to accept the testimony of PW5 Ujjwal and make it the basis of conviction of accused Hari Om. b) There was no link evidence suggesting that the fingerprints were correctly lifted from the house of the deceased, and were duly preserved before sending them for fingerprints expert’s opinion. c) The only material against accused Sanjay @ Sonu and Saurabh @ Sanju was the fact that their sample fingerprints tallied with those lifted from the house of the deceased. In the absence of any substantive evidence, this fact alone would be insufficient to sustain their conviction and sentence. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Musheer Khan alias Badshah Khan and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.6 d) Out of six named accused charged of having committed the offence of dacoity, three accused having being acquitted, whose acquittal 6 (2010) 2 SCC 748 was not challenged, the remaining three accused