as to whether he recorded statements of both these witnesses and I have also not recorded statement of Shri Lokare to that respect. Prior to 03.10.2013 said witnesses never stated that they had seen the deceased girl with the accused. It is true to say that said both the witnesses are residing in the transit camp.” 56. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the witnesses, namely, Dipendrakumar Dhirendranath Shukla (PW-9) and Pradipkumar Ganesh Rawat (PW14), were created by the Investigating Officers, by way of padding, because a case of sensational nature was not being solved. Their evidence is totally false and unworthy of credence. The witness Sanjay Ganesh Rawat (PW-15) did not state in his testimony that he had seen the child victim in the company of the accused appellant, and hence, his evidence does not give any support to the circumstance of last seen together. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the 47 Criminal Appeal No(s). 1954-1955 of 2022