22 Further, despite several opportunities, the prosecution failed to explain the acts of DW-1 during the investigation, or why her role was specifically erased. Reliance is placed in this regard on Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam17. It was urged that this warrants adverse inference against the prosecution, creating doubt over its reliability. 41. It was argued that the testimony of DW-1 Deepika Shinde in fact shows that technical evidence was analysed on the date of the incident itself. This does not square with the complete absence of telephonic evidence in the testimonies of the investigating team including PW-4, PW-28, PW-31. Telephonic evidence about whether the accused spoke to each other, or knew each other, or whether the deceased spoke to any of the accused, or the triangulation of location was not collected during the investigation and has been kept out of the trial. It was urged that in its place, this court now had to rely upon the ipse dixit of the investigation team, knowing that electronic evidence was not only available, but was surreptitiously used to Neha’s detriment. It was pointed out that PW-31 IO made no reference to the presence of officials of the Crime Branch on 19.06.2011, 20.06.2011, or 21.06.2011. However, PW-28, Vijay Singh Chauhan made reference to his Crime Branch posting, and informing PW-19 YR Gaikwad, what he (i.e., PW-28) saw on 22.06.2011. However, PW-19 in his testimony was silent on receiving any information from PW-28 on 22.06.2011. DW-1’s capacity for conducting investigation was questioned on the ground that the CrPC does not permit parallel/multiple investigations in the same case. 42. It was submitted that despite recovery of the “Oriflame” document from Neha, the prosecution did not rely on the document as an exhibit. The prosecution did not examine any official from the company to provide any context whatsoever as to the forms, catalogue or, perfume recovered from Neha’s residence on 22.06.2011 (Ex. P11). There is no evidence to suggest that the form seized from Neha was filled in by the deceased Megha; nor was the 17 (2019) 13 SCC 289