164 A B C D SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 8 S.C.R. found at the place where the alleged crime took place or the place from where the body was recovered. The prosecution has not been able to establish the distance between the two places - that of the crime and the place where the appellant was spotted in the morning hours. There is no spot map or any ocular evidence to this effect. As noted above, what led these witnesses to discover the appellant of having committed the crime has gone unstated. It is only on the basis of the information furnished by PW 1, expressing his suspicion on the appellant, that he was on 13.6.2010 arrested and the same day, his residence was searched. It is here that the major contradiction, if not falsity, in the prosecution case emerges. The Investigating Officer PW 12 is categorical of having suspected the appellant only on the basis of the information furnished by the father of the prosecutrix, i.e., PW 1. PW 12 states that “the father of deceased expressed suspicion against the appellant and at the time of his house search was taken.” and PW 1 states that “He did not suspect anyone prior to 14.6.2010.” The search was conducted on 13th and not on 14th of June, 2010. He added that finding the house of the appellant to be locked, he called the medical analyzer, Mumbai, whereafter, he, by breaking open the lock of the house of the appellant, recovered incriminating articles vide Ext.36 on 13.6.2010 and such articles being: “Article 1 – Square cardboard; E Article 2 – Blanket; Article 3 – Floor tiles pieces; Article 4 – Mat; Article 5 –Towel; F Article 6 –Spanner; Article 7 –Hair found on pillow; Article 8 – Mat; and Article 9 – Pillow” G H 28. Having conducted the search in the presence of PW 5 and Piyush Ramesh Kumar Jain (unexamined), he locked and sealed the house. Out of the two, the prosecution examined only one witness, namely PW 5. Perusal of the testimony of this witness as also the Investigating Officer and the relatives of the prosecutrix, does not establish one major fact, that being, who actually identified the house of the appellant.