43 78. What is evident from an overall reading of the prosecution version as compared to the testimonies of DW-1, DW-3 and DW-4 as well as the documentary evidence is that the “breakthrough”, claimed by the prosecution resulting from Neha’s arrest on 22.06.2011 is not correct. The police had knowledge about the sim cards of deceased Aslesha and Megha. Apparently, the call details of these were analysed by DW-1. However, the prosecution kept these details away from the trial. Likewise, although PW-28 and PW-31 both elaborately described how Neha was arrested (especially role played by PW-4, PW-19 who relayed the information and the participation of PW-3, PW-6 as well as PW-36), all of them were conspicuously silent about DW-1. Whereas DW-1 admitted, in no uncertain terms, at two different places, to having participated in the interrogation of Neha and also having given information regarding her likely whereabouts- including the clothes that she would wear, leading to her arrest. The cat was out of the bag, so to say when PW-7 admitted that DW-1 participated in the recovery of articles on 23.06.2011, a day after the arrest of all the appellants. 79. Having regard to all these circumstances, the prosecution version with respect to Neha’s arrest and interrogation cannot be believed. The suppression of these facts, from the court, attracts an adverse inference that the prosecution’s version with respect to manner of Neha’s arrest, and the role of DW-1, is unreliable. 80. The question which then arises is: what is the impact of the rejection of the manner of Neha’s arrest in the prosecution’s case? The appellant urged that, the entire story – i.e., disclosure statements and the recoveries effected on 22.06.2011 and 23.06.2011, has to be rejected. This court is of the opinion that such a drastic approach is uncalled for. Concededly the present case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. The rejection of the prosecution version with respect to Neha’s arrest would mean that only that circumstance is held not to be