45 mangalsutra, a knife and a photograph with Manoj in sunglasses. PW-6 corroborated those facts. 82. PW-3’s testimony was impeached pointing to the discrepancy in time. He reached the police station after 7:30 AM. Further, in cross-examination, the witness was not able to depose about particulars of the houses the police party went to, who were there, etc. Likewise, a question mark was raised about PW-6. It was urged that the IO never asked another witness to accompany PW-3. It was urged these witnesses are interested persons, as they are related to the deceased and PW-1. Another argument regarding the recoveries on 22.06.2011 were that it is unbelievable that Rahul and Manoj would have kept the looted articles and the weapons used to assault and kill the deceased, given that they tried to dispose of other articles such as shoes, camera, clothes, etc. and hide the bike and scooty, etc. In the opinion of the court, the manner of arrest of these individuals, has been spoken to by and large consistently by the two witnesses PW-3 and PW-6 who have corroborated the IO’s deposition. However, in respect of Neha, what is not explained is why PW-4 (Banno Solanki) did not participate in her arrest and search of her premises. After having called PW-4, to ensure compliance with the law that a woman police constable should apprehend, search and arrest a female accused, the prosecution has offered no explanation as to why PW-4 was not involved in the further proceedings. PW-4 admitted that she was sitting in the car when the team proceeded to Neha’s house. Her presence in the team is confirmed by PW-3 as well as the IO. PW-4 herself does not corroborate the prosecution version about recoveries made from Neha’s house. 83. As observed earlier, the seizure memos detailing the articles seized at the behest of the accused: Ex. P11 (Neha) included an ATM Card which belonged to Megha, the deceased; Ex. P14 (Rahul) included looted jewellery (golden bangles, part of broken mangalsutra), a country made pistol, a knife measuring