blood were detected. There is no DNA matching from payjeb (anklet) as incomplete female DNA profile was obtained. There is no matching of the male DNA profile obtained from the dhoti with that of the deceased. Information about the payjeb (anklet) was given on 25.12.2021 and the recovery was made after 27 hours of the information, no explanation is coming forth from the Prosecuting Agency, as to why it was not recovered on the same day. The dhoti, which was recovered, has semen stains of accused Chotu Lal, but the same is not found to be connected in any way with the DNA profile of the deceased. So far as the recovery of shirt at the instance of Sultan is concerned, the recovery was effected from the tapri in which in fact Surendra was residing. In the seizure memo of shirt i.e. Exhibit-P30, it is not mentioned that the shirt was blood stained and as per the prosecution version, accused Sultan had washed his shirt and had left it for drying and it was recovered, in that state without there being any blood stains on it. As to how the shirt of the accused contained blood stains and how mixed DNA profile was obtained, is also not clear from the evidence adduced. If the prosecution version is to be accepted, then on 24.12.2021 itself in the morning, the Dog Squad led to accused Sultan and he was apprehended on the same morning. If he was apprehended from the tapri , as to why a search was not conducted and as to why the shirt was not recovered at the same time, is also not borne out from the evidence which has been produced before the Court. The recovery of the shirt after 3 days of the arrest of accused, from the place which was already known to the Investigating Team, as accused
