A bench of justices Gita Mittal and Anu Malhotra said this "sole circumstance by itself does not establish an unbroken chain of circumstances which points unerringly towards guilt" of the trio and the prosecution had to prove the cigarette butts were seized from the spot.
"The sole circumstance that the prosecution has sought to rely in support of the appellants' (convicts') guilt was that the DNA from the appellants' samples matched the DNA of the saliva on the cigarette butts seized from the spot.
The police had claimed to have recovered from the spot cigarette butts and plastic glasses which the convicts and the deceased had allegedly used before the murder took place.
However, the victim's brother had testified that the deceased Munshi Yadav only drank occasionally and never smoked.
More From This Section
"It is in the evidence of Rama Yadav that the deceased Munshi Yadav drank occasionally and he never smoked cigarettes," the court said.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by convicts -- Sunil Kumar, Arvind and Dinesh -- challenging a trial court's September 2016 decision awarding them life term with a fine of Rs 2,000.
As per the prosecution, Munshi was a labourer in a factory in the DSIDC, Narela here and was allegedly killed by the three in December 2012.
The court, however, did not agree with the prosecution version and said that "the prosecution is unable to establish claimed recoveries of the cigarette butts or the broken plastic glasses from the spot.
"It is noteworthy that in the brief facts while detailing allegations of Rama Yadav with regard to Munshi Yadav going missing and recovery of his dead body, there is no reference to the cigarette butts or the plastic glasses alleged to have been recovered from the spot," the bench noted.