appellant, they would not have escaped the notice of the 1st Investigating Officer (PW-16). Clearly thus, the factum of recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of the accused appellant by the 2nd Investigating Officer (PW-18) does not inspire confidence. 69. In addition to the fact that none of the articles recovered at the instance of the accused appellant tested positive for the presence of the human blood or semen, the fact remains that the accused appellant could not be expected to preserve these worthless incriminating articles for a period of three days, during which he was a free bird, so as to provide incriminating Thus, these material recoveries, against apart from himself. being inconsequential, are also doubtful. 62 Criminal Appeal No(s). 1954-1955 of 2022