33 insinuate that that officer played a prominent role in the investigation, and was taken off it, and that her role in solving the crime, earned her an out of turn promotion. The AAG urged that the appellants relied upon the statement of DW1 Deepika Shinde, who had never claimed that she had made any arrest in the present case. As an officer of the crime branch she was involved initially in assisting or helping ascertain the basic details, as the victims were women. DW1 was posted with a unit called "We care for you", which focusses upon women’s protection. Soon after Neha’s arrest, the IO felt that DW-1 was not needed to do anything further. Her promotion was based upon her contribution and role in many cases and this being just one for her initial response cannot be considered that significant. It was submitted that her hidden role, alleged by the appellants, is a bogey. While she admitted to analysing call details, it is forthcoming from the trial proceedings, that the call details had no role – much less any significance, in the investigation, or pinning the accused, their arrest, or recovery of articles at their behest. Therefore, the theory of the appellants’ counsels that Neha was not actually arrested as projected by the prosecution, or as found, is without any basis, but merely argumentative. 59. The AAG submitted that chance witness PW-10 witnessed the immediate aftermath of the crime, as he saw the three accused leaving after committing the crime. He described, at the earliest opportunity- on 20.06.2011, that two boys (one injured at the ankle, and the other at the elbow, and both bleeding as a result of the injuries) were sitting on a bike, when a girl in a Scooty appeared, and asked them to go to a doctor for examination. The so-called discrepancies highlighted by the appellants, are neither material, nor of such importance to discredit the entire version given by him, in the course of his deposition in court. It was urged that nothing worthwhile was elicited in PW-10’s crossexamination. He clearly identified the three individuals, at the earliest opportunity, i.e. after knowing about the occurrence of the crime and also unhesitatingly identified them in court, in the presence of PW-18, the Naib