the company of the accused appellant were examined by the Investigating Officer (PW-16). It is difficult, if not impossible, to believe that even though fervent efforts were going on to search for the missing child in the colony, the witnesses who claimed to have seen the child victim with the accused appellant would not have stepped forward to give leads to the 1st Investigating Officer (PW-16) at the earliest possible opportunity. These significant omissions and fundamental flaws in the investigation are sufficient to satisfy us that the witnesses of the last seen circumstance were created to add padding to the prosecution case and as a matter of fact, none of them had seen the accused appellant and the deceased (child victim) together. 64. In the cross-examination of Mandar Vasant Dharmadhikari [(PW-18), i.e., 2nd Investigating Officer], the following significant facts were elicited: - 57 Criminal Appeal No(s). 1954-1955 of 2022