PRAKASH NISHAD @ KEWAT ZINAK NISHAD v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [SANJAY KAROL, J.] and sent it for post-mortem, which was conducted by PW 4. This Investigating Officer only conducted the spot search. His role ends here. 15. Thereafter, PW 12 (the 2nd Investigating Officer) based on certain inputs (not disclosed), arrested the appellant from his workplace on 13.6.2010 and searched his house in the presence of two independent witnesses, namely, PW 5 and Piyush Ramesh Kumar Jain (not examined). The search resulted in recovery of certain incriminating articles vide memo Ext.35. The appellant was in no manner associated with such a search. 16. Thereafter, further investigation was entrusted to PW 13 - the Deputy Commissioner of Police (the third Investigating Officer), who, on the basis of disclosure statement of the appellant, conducted the search at two places, including the house of the appellant previously searched on 13.6.2010. Such searches were conducted on 16th and 17th of June, 2010, leading to the recovery of certain incriminating articles linking the appellant to the crime, which stood established in DNA reports (Ext.85 & 86) prepared by the forensic experts through scientific analysis. The Investigating Officer found tell-tale signs of the appellant in the shape of stains of his semen, on the vaginal smear slide of the prosecutrix and blood stains of the prosecutrix on the banian (vest) of the appellant, linking the appellant to the crime. As such, on completion of the investigation, a challan was presented in the Court for trial. 17. In the aforesaid backdrop, we now proceed to examine the testimonies of the witnesses as categorized above. 18. On oath, PW 1, (father of the prosecutrix) categorically admits that he had not expressed any doubt on any person for having caused the death of his daughter. He expressly stated that “I had no doubt on any one about the death of my daughter”. He recognized the appellant who, according to the said witness, lived in the same “chawl”. His testimony is indicative of the fact that on the evening of 11.6.2010, his daughter (the prosecutrix), aged 6 years, after having dinner left home. Finding her not to have returned home, he searched for her and found her to be dead, in a “gutter” near his house. Later on, he states that prior to 14.6.2010, he had not suspected the appellant of having committed the crime. Significantly, the date and the basis leading to such suspicion is not disclosed by him. 19. Other aspects of his deposition, in particular, his statement with respect to the recovery of the nicker shall be dealt with separately. He recognized the nicker (Article 10) to be that of his daughter. 161 A B C D E F G H