PRAKASH NISHAD @ KEWAT ZINAK NISHAD v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [SANJAY KAROL, J.] of the chemical analysis as also the DNA report and the FSL report. The said DNA report prepared by an expert revealed samples of “viscera” (semen) of the appellant on swab drawn from the private parts of the prosecutrix. He also recorded the statement of Munna Saroj, who was residing with the appellant. So is the essence of the examination-in-chief of this witness. 37. It may be noted that neither this witness nor anyone else has deposed the fact of medical examination of the appellant, as is stipulated under Section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter, ‘Cr.P.C.’). 38. Further, whether his communication for medical examination of the appellant was ever followed up at all is not known. So also, its resultant consequences. Who took the samples of the body parts of the appellant, if at all, is a mystery. The record does not disclose such fact. Non-examination of Ganesh Bheema and Munna Saroj in Court, despite being cited witnesses renders his version to be uncorroborated, thereby creating a gap in chain of circumstances, preventing it from being complete. 39. The house from where the articles were recovered on 17.6.2010 was neither owned nor in the exclusive possession of the appellant. Instead, as is admitted by the Investigating Officer, it belonged to a third party. The Investigating Officer admits that the said house was occupied by one Ganesh Bheema, who was never examined in the case, so also why and what is that Munna Saroj disclosed on 19.6.2010, has not seen the light of the day. Their complicity in the crime has also not been ruled out. On this issue examination of Ext.35 reveals that the house where appellant was residing was owned by Munna Lalchand and that it was jointly possessed by the appellant and Prakash who have not been examined. 40. What further renders the veracity of the testimony of this witness to be questionable has surfaced in the cross-examination part, wherein he admits not to have mentioned in the statement Ext.47 “that the accused had hidden the clothes”. In this view of the matter, the articles so discovered cannot be said to form a discovery in terms Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 41. Significantly, from the testimony of PW 7 it is evident that appellant did not know Marathi language for he states that “I know that the appellant does not know Marathi”. 167 A B C D E F G H