50 91. The second unexplained feature is why two sets of witnesses were joined in the proceedings, on two consecutive dates. PW-3 and PW-6, witnessed the arrest of the three accused, their disclosure statements and recoveries made on the first day i.e., on 22.06.2011. An entirely different set of witnesses were called on the next day i.e., 23.06.2011 (PW-7 and Prakash Ichke). Furthermore, one of the recovery witnesses for 23.06.2011 (Prakash Ichke) was not examined. As noted previously, the recovery witnesses received phone call at around 7-8 AM and were asked to report to the Police Station which they did at around 88.30 AM on 23-06-2011; the disclosure statements made by the accused on that day were recorded at different points of time but before 10.00 AM. However, the prosecution does not explain the absence of any activity between around 10 AM and 1.30 PM when the first recovery was made that day. PW-7 on his own admission stated that he was acquainted with the deceased family; apparently, his cell phone numbers was known to them. As noted earlier, he also admitted that DW-1 Dipika Shinde had participated in the investigation proceedings that day. 92. All these factors, in the opinion of this court cast doubt on the prosecution version as to what occurred on the next day i.e., 23.06.2011. Given that the accused were detained and arrested in the early morning of 22.06.2011, that they made disclosure statements, and there were recoveries that day at their behest, which were completed that morning itself, the instalment or episodic procedure adopted by the investigation, throws doubts about its veracity. Nothing prevented the prosecution from acting on the statements made by the accused and collecting all the evidence – which by its admission was readily available and easily accessible (given the knowledge of the accused which they were willing to share) on the day of their arrest on 22.06.2011. Even if there were some impediments, in terms of, lack of time or otherwise, the involvement of an entirely different set of panch witnesses, without explaining why the other witnesses who had evidenced recoveries on 22.06.2011 could not be asked to