appellant was unexceptionally from the location from where the dead body of the child victim was recovered, then the Investigating Officer (PW-18) should have collected soil samples from the other places frequented by the accused appellant. Then only the possibility of the soil not being from any other place visited by the accused appellant could have been excluded. 74. In any event, even if it is held that the soil/mud found on the shoes of the accused appellant tallied with the soil found in the pond, that would be just an indication of the fact that the accused appellant may have visited the area surrounding the pond at some point of time. This, by itself, would not incriminate the accused appellant in any manner. 75. Resultantly, we conclude: - 65 Criminal Appeal No(s). 1954-1955 of 2022