17 has not seen the appellants coming into the house. Therefore, his evidence is not sufficient to place the appellants at the scene of crime. 36. The expert, who examined the articles at the place of occurrence and found some finger prints, has not been examined. The person who took the sample finger prints has not been examined. The finger prints had been lifted on 17.12.2012 whereas the articles were seized on 18.12.2012. There is no explanation about why the articles were just left at the scene after developing the finger prints and why they were not seized and sent for analysis on the same day. Further, no prints have been found on the doors or the steel almirah to substantiate the robbery. The examination of expert is crucial especially if reliance is placed on the finger print report to suspect the guilt of the appellant. PW-12, Panch witness to the seizure of bottles states that the bottle was "lying near the door of the courtyard was seized." This makes the process of the lifting the print suspicious. 37. The shirt of appellant No. 2 recovered from him in pursuance of his statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is allegedly matched with the small broken button found at the scene of crime. This has been relied upon by the courts below as another circumstance to corroborate the presence of the appellants at the scene of crime. However, there is nothing on record to show that the shirt is unique and cannot be matched with the shirt of any other