76 to Neha was seized on 23.04.2011, and from an open area, the likelihood of its contamination- even if arguendo the genuineness of its recovery might have been accepted- carried some degree of probability. For these reasons, it is held that the DNA report in the present case cannot have a clinching, or high degree of probative value. XII. Evidence relating to footprints 144. The Inspection Report (Ex. P77) prepared by PW-21 Dr. Sudhir Sharma described the scene of the crime. It mentioned that three types of blooded partial shoe prints were found in the following areas: (a) near the table at the crime scene; (b) in the pool of blood near the body of Ashlesha; and (c) on the floor near the almirahs. 145. PW-21 did not, in his cross-examination remember the number of partial shoe prints found at the incident (which he later says were at 2-3 places), but states that there were three kinds of prints. He also mentioned that no dust was present, and therefore barefoot prints were not possible. In his chief examination, PW-21 mentioned that at his instruction, PW-17 (crime scene photographer) took scaled photographs of the blood-smeared partial shoe prints found at the place of the incident (which are Ex. P66 to Ex. P74). This is not mentioned in the chief examination of PW-17; who only later in his cross, states that he had taken 8x12 scaled photos of the footprints and locations with blood stains, which were Ex. P66 to Ex. P74. 146. As already elaborated earlier, Manoj’s shoes were seized at his behest (Ex. P31, Ex. P32) and sandals from Neha based on her disclosure (Ex. P34, Ex. P35) on 23.06.2011. Rahul’s right shoe was seized by Annapurna PS on 22.06.2011 which is corroborated by the testimony of PW-20 Harbhajan Singh (independent witness), who stated that Abhay Tiwari (not examined) had spotted the blood-stained shoe in his garden and reported it to the police, and