21. Learned senior counsel further submitted that, admittedly, the 1st Investigating Officer (PW-16) collected the forensic samples from numerous watchmen living in the same chawl, where the accused appellant was residing, however, the FSL report pertaining to these samples never saw light of the day. Hence, an adverse inference has to be drawn that these reports were not favouring the prosecution’s story, which is why the same was held back from the Court. 22. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the FSL report17 indicating a match between the mud/soil found on the shoes of the accused appellant, and the mud/soil found near the pond, from where the dead body of the child victim was recovered, is also vague and inconsequential. Firstly, the very factum of recovery of the soiled shoes at the 17 Supra note 11. 17 Criminal Appeal No(s). 1954-1955 of 2022