PRAKASH NISHAD @ KEWAT ZINAK NISHAD v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [SANJAY KAROL, J.] record. Therefore, it is apparent that statutory safeguards in reference to language have not been complied with, causing prejudice to the appellant in terms of Syed Qasim Rizvi (supra). Here only taking note of the decision of this Court rendered in Siju Kurian v. State of Karnataka 2023 SCC OnLine 429, we clarify the said decision to have been taken, given the attending facts where the appellant was provided with the assistance of interpreter and his disclosure statement leading to discovery of a fact, unlike the instant case not linking the recovery to the appellant with the crime. 46. Further, PW 1 has stated that the key of the room, after effecting recovery on 16.6.2010, was given to the “room partner of the accused”. Who is this room partner? Was he examined? Was he aware of the clothes being hidden? Did he hide the clothes? Was his complicity in the crime ruled out? Are all questions left to be guessed. Such room partner remains unexamined and his complicity and role in the crime not explored. 47. Version of the Investigating Officer, that it was PW 12 who locked the room, does not inspire confidence. The witness does not remember having placed on record any document indicating that the lock was labelled and sealed for the search being conducted at the first instance. It may be noted that in the memos as well, he admits not to have mentioned where exactly the appellant had kept clothes in the room. 48. On the issue of first disclosure statement Ext.47, we find the version of PW 13 to be materially contradicted by the Panch witness PW 7, who, in no uncertain terms and unrefutedly, has deposed that “Devraj asked me that the clothes were hidden in the appellant’s house and as to whether I was ready to act as a panch.” (here PW 13 – the Investigating Officer is referred to as Devraj). This totally shatters the prosecution case on the point of recovery pursuant to the alleged disclosure statement. 49. Even on the point of recovery of the nicker of the prosecutrix there is contradiction with regard to its place and numbers. We notice that the dead body was recovered in the presence of two independent witnesses, namely, PW 9 and PW 10. Significantly, PW 9 states that on 12.6.2010 the dead body of the prosecutrix was recovered from the nala and that “one nicker was lying on a tin shade. One blood smeared banian was lying on the roof”. He further adds that after recovery, the dead body was brought home. “She was raped” (here reference is of the 169 A B C D E F G H