160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 8 S.C.R. A B C 8. The prosecutrix was born from the wedlock of PW 1 and PW 2 and at the time of occurrence of the incident, i.e., on 11.6.2010, she was just 6 years of age. Neither her identity, nor the fact that she died as a result of major ante-mortem injuries, is in dispute. D 9. Dr. Anjali Pimple (PW 4), who examined the body of the prosecutrix, has testified to the factum of the post-mortem conducted by her and preparation of medical report (Ext.28) thereof. As a witness on oath, she has deposed that the prosecutrix suffered multiple injuries (15 in total) on her body, including on both of her private parts. Undoubtedly such injuries are severe, serious and grievous in nature. Thus, the prosecution has established the case of homicidal death beyond any doubt. E 10. The question which arises for consideration is: as to who committed the dastardly crime? Was it only the appellant or someone else? 11. For ascertaining such fact, we now proceed to examine the prosecution case as set out in different stages, be it investigation or trial. F G 12. The FIR dated 12.6.2010 (Ext.44), so registered on the complaint of PW 1 (Ext.19 which forms part of Ext.1), records that in the morning of 12th June, 2010 the dead body of the prosecutrix was found floating in the Nala, in close proximity to her house. She had been sexually assaulted and killed by an “unidentified person”, after which the body was thrown into the nala with the objective of destruction of evidence of such assault. 13. Significantly, none is suspected at this stage. The said FIR was recorded by Police Officer - PW 11. The investigation consequent thereto was conducted by three people – PW 6, PW 12, and PW 13. H 14. PW 6 (the 1st Investigating Officer) in the presence of Panch Witnesses – PW 9 and PW 10, recovered the body of the prosecutrix