10 does not reveal either the time of recording of statements or the names of the witnesses. 20. Commenting on the recoveries made on 23.06.2011, it was submitted that no explanation was furnished as to why truncated recoveries were made on different dates, as was claimed by the prosecution. Further, the witness to these recoveries PW-7 Sandeep Narulkar, appears to be a stock witness who stated that he reached the police station at 8:45 AM on 23.06.2011, i.e., after the disclosure statements (Ex. P28, P31 and P34) were recorded. In the chief examination, this witness deposed that Rahul disclosed before him that he could get the clothes, knife, lens of camera recovered. Manoj disclosed keeping his clothes in his father's house and Neha about having kept her clothes in her vehicle parked behind a hospital. Then police prepared memos Ex. P28, P31 and P34 respectively and recovered articles of which memos were prepared as Ex. P29, P31 & P34 respectively. It is pointed out that PW-7 does not say anything about a lady police officer in the team which would have been required on account of involvement of female accused Neha. It was urged that nonexamination of the other witness (Prakash lchke) assumes great significance and without any explanation for his non-examination it cannot be said that the recoveries are reliable. 21. Counsel cast serious doubts as to the recovery by police on 22.06.2011 and 23.06.2011. She particularly pointed to the fact that a photograph of Rahul wearing a black beaded bracelet was found from his house and seized as Ex. P14. This was not made pursuant to any disclosure and apparently was seized during the process of seizing other items. During the cross-examination of PW31 IO, a suggestion was made that this picture was clicked when the bracelet was forced to be worn by the accused. The IO denied the suggestion. Likewise, a photograph of Manoj, wearing sunglasses was seized from his house and exhibited as Ex. P17. This was in the course of his disclosure statement leading