13 very motive for the offence was to collect ransom, it is doubtful whether the kidnappers would have been so equivocal about their demand. 17. Adding to the confusion, Rajwant Kaur (PW-1) stated during her cross-examination that the person on the phone who made the ransom call was a stranger and then went on to add that she had recognised the voice but as her child’s life was in danger, she did not tell the police. She further stated that she did not say that she had recognized the voice until the end. She also admitted that she did not even mention in her examination-in-chief that she had recognised the voice. Compounding matters further, she stated that the police had used tracking dogs on 29.03.2013 but denied the suggestion that the dogs had detected the body in the well. According to her, the dogs were used in the evening after the body was taken out from the well in the afternoon. Thereafter, she said that the tracking dogs had gone to the well and washing area at 7-8 o’clock but she did not remember on which date it was, but it was after the body was found. Similarly, Jitendra Singh (PW-8), a close relation of PW-1 and a key witness to the prosecution’s seizure memos, stated that he had heard of sniffer dogs being used between 28.03.2013 and 29.03.2013 but it was not in his presence. As to why sniffer/tracking dogs would be pressed into service after the police found the dead body, the murder weapon and other material objects is not comprehensible. Notably, the Investigating Officer (PW-16) did not even mention the use of sniffer/tracking dogs during investigation. This suppression, be it for whatever reason, does not reflect well upon the prosecution.