persons who work as watchmen. The prosecution claims that the incident took place in broad daylight sometime after 10:30 A.M. Mainfestly thus, there was hardly any possibility that the accused appellant could have carried the child victim’s dead body to the pond, which was located one kilometer away, without being noticed. Hence, two possible scenarios arise: (i) That the incident did not take place in the chawl as claimed by the prosecution; and/or (ii) The incident did not take place at the time or in the manner alleged by the prosecution. 38. Having noted this inherent improbability in the prosecution case, we now proceed to discuss the evidence of the material prosecution witnesses. 39. For the purpose of appreciating the circumstance of last seen together, the relevant witnesses are the complainant, i.e., Manoj Bhaskar Sadavarte [(PW-1), father of the deceased child], 29 Criminal Appeal No(s). 1954-1955 of 2022