156 A B C D E F SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 8 S.C.R. 1.3 In the instant case, the reasons why the investigation officers were changed time and again from PW 6 to PW 12 and then to PW 13, is surprising and unexplained. No reason stands given for having decided that there was no need to comply with the provisions of Section 53A, Cr.P.C.; there is unexplained delay in sending the samples collected for analysis; a premises already searched was searched again, the reason for which is not borne from record; lock panchnama is not prepared; no samples of blood and semen of the appellant can be said to have been drawn by any medical or para medical staff; allegedly an additional sample is taken from the appellant more than a month after the arrest; alleged disclosure statement of the appellant was never read over and explained to the appellant in his vernacular language; the appellant was not residing alone at the place alleged to be his residence; and what was the basis of appellant being a suspect at the first instance, remains a mystery; persons who may have shed light on essential aspects- ‘GB’ and ‘MS’ went unexamined etc., such multitudinous lapses have compromised the quest to punish the doer of such a barbaric act in absolute peril. The charges levied on the appellant stand not proved [Paras 77 and 79][180G-H; 181-A-C] Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88; Indrajit Das v. State of Tripura 2023 SCC OnLine SC 201; Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130 : [2011] 8 SCR 774; Rajendra PrahladraoWasnik v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 12 SCC 460 : [2018] 14 SCR 585; Pattu Rajan v. State of T.N. (2019) 4 SCC 771; Manoj v. State of M.P. (2023) 2 SCC 353; Maghavendra Pratap Singh @Pankaj Singh v. State of Chattisgarh 2023 SCC OnLine SC 486 – relied on. Case Law Reference G H [1985] 1 SCR 88 relied on para 24 [1953] SCR 589 followed para 44 [2011] 8 SCR 774 relied on para 57 [2018] 14 SCR 585 relied on para 57