17 32. It was next urged that there were serious gaps in the TIP of the jewellery held on 09.07.2011 by PW-12 Tehsildar. In this regard, it was pointed that PW-3 Deepak Ranade deposed those two bangles were removed from Rohini’s hand and one kudi (earring) was removed from her body and handed over to him. During jewellery identification proceedings, PW-1 identified Megha’s four (4) bangles and Rohini’s two (2) bangles. It is unclear if bangles identified by PW-1 included those handed over to PW-3. Further, if the bangles of deceased Rohini given to PW-3 were not the same as those identified by PW-1, the two recovered bangles from the accused were not matched with those given to PW3. It was also unclear if the jewellery was mixed with other items having similar designs, as required by law. Similar pieces of broken mangalsutra should have been kept during the identification proceedings as well. Further, the identification memo (Ex. P1) did not indicate how many similar pieces of jewellery were mixed along with the jewellery identified. There is discrepancy in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 as to what was said to have been stolen when questioned on 21.06.2011. According to PW-3, on 21.06.2011 when he went along with PW-1 to the house of the deceased, PW-1 only informed about the missing camera. 33. Challenging reliance on the DNA analysis report, counsel submitted that there was inordinate delay in sending items to the forensic science laboratory (FSL). The items seized on 23.06.2011 were sent for examination to the FSL on 13.07.2011 (after 20 days) as seen by Ex. P115. This delay was not explained by the prosecution. Therefore, it was urged that records of the police malkhana and conditions of safekeeping of items were important in this case. Also, statistical analysis was not conducted which is an integral part of the scientific process. The lack of cross examination of the DNA expert PW-35 Dr. Pankaj Shrivastava on this was argued to be immaterial since this goes to admissibility of the DNA report as scientific evidence and this court should consider this serious gap in the scientific process. Counsel submitted that blood reference samples of the