Recovery of weapon

Accused was convicted by Trial Court for committing rape with complainant / alleged victim and was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years

Validity

After the occurrence, complainant / alleged victim came back to her house where her brother and other family members were admittedly living but she remained mum for almost 07 months

Long silence of complainant / alleged victim for a period of 07 months spoke volumes against her conduct

Story narrated by complainant / alleged victim with the delay of 07 months regarding forcible rape could not be relied upon blindly

Pistol was allegedly recovered on the pointing out of accused but the same was not used during the occurrence

Pistol was recovered from a residential house and no witness of the locality was associated during recovery proceedings, which was violative of the provisions of Section 103, Cr.P.C., therefore, such recovery could not be relied upon

It was not a case of rape as envisaged under Section 376, P.P.C. rather it was a case of fornication i.e. zina with consent, punishable under Section 496-B, P.P.C.

Supreme Court was conscious of the fact that once it was held that it was a case of fornication punishable under Section 496-B, P.P.C. then complainant / alleged victim was also liable to be proceeded against and punished as an accused of the offence of illicit intercourse with consent

Supreme Court did not punish the complainant / alleged victim at this present stage without providing her opportunity of defence, as she had not been challaned by Police and no charge of fornication under Section 496-B, P.P.C. was framed against her by Trial Court, and she had no opportunity to defend herself

Supreme Court modified conviction and sentence of accused under Section 376, P.P.C. to one under Section 496-B, P.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for five years along with fine

Appeal was disposed of. [Majority View]

In matters where prosecution case contains doubts and mysteries, benefit of the same has to be given to accused who is considered to be the favourite child of law

Recovery of blood stained bat, which was weapon of offence was only corroborative piece of evidence

In absence of substantive evidence, recovery of weapon of offence was not considered sufficient to hold accused guilty of offence charged

When substantive evidence failed to connect accused with commission of offence or was disbelieved, then corroborative evidence was of no help to prosecution

Corroborative evidence could not by itself prove prosecution's case

In the present case given the doubtfulness of direct substantive ocular evidence, the corroborative effect of recovery of weapon of offence was insufficient

Testimony of prosecution witnesses was doubtful, there were inconsistencies between description of injuries of deceased in crime report and post mortem report; recovery of crime weapon was also doubtful and DNA analysis was absent

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and he was acquitted of the charge by extending benefit of doubt

Appeal was allowed.

Accused was charged for committing murder of the deceased and causing injuries to the complainant by inflicting dagger blows

Statement regarding admission of guilt amounting to confession was inadmissible in view of Arts. 38 & 39 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, but the second part, which related to the disclosure of a fact of recovery of the dagger from the roof top of the hotel, on pointation of accused was admissible and relevant as comtemplated under Art. 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Thus, the recovery of dagger being the crime weapon whereby deceased was murdered and complainant was injured by all means was a corroborative piece of evidence

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

However, due to mitigating circumstances, the death sentence was altered to imprisonment for life

Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Complainant submitted an application to the SHO stating therein that about eight months earlier accused came to his house; asked complainant's son to go to another city for search of work; both left the house on cycle; after about five months accused returned to village and told the complainant that his son was all right; that the complainant was informed by a prosecution witness that he and another had overheard the accused that they were talking by naming the complainant's son and saying that they had committed his qatl-i-amd

Held; case was one of no evidence and the evidence produced was too weak that could not be relied upon in a case of minor offence

Complainant's son whether dead or alive was a mystery as the case in hand was the one where there was no dead-body

Complaint and the FIR were based on suspicion

Suspicion, however strong may be, cannot take the place of legal proof

Prosecution witness who had overheard the accused was close relative of the complainant

Evidence of extra-judicial confession had lost its worth for the reason that the person before whom it was made had opened his mouth after two months of the occurrence

Recovery of dagger at the instance of accused was of no consequence because it was a case where no dead body existed at all

Trial Court had committed a serious illegality and had remained unable to differentiate provisions of Ss. 302(b) & 302(c), P.P.C.

Appeal was allowed and the accused was acquitted of the charge, in circumstances.

Allegations against the accused were that he along with his co-accused duly armed with daggers in furtherance of their common intention stabbed dagger blows to deceased and committed his murder

Record showed that alleged daggers were received on 11.03.2009 however, the same were sent to the Chemical Examiner for testing purpose on 29.06.2009, which was received by the said office on 04.09.2009 after the delay of more than three (03) months for which no explanation had been furnished that during such period whether the crime weapons/case property was kept in safe custody

If the case property was lying in the malkana then why entry of keeping the same had not been brought on record

Case property was sent for chemical examination through Head Constable but the said Head Constable had not been examined by the prosecution to corroborate the version of prosecution

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed in circumstances.

In the present case recovery of revolver from the possession of the accused had no impact as no empty was recovered from the place of occurrence

In these circumstances, a dent in the prosecution's case had been created, benefit of which must be given to the accused

Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted of the charge against him.

Recovery of weapon of offence is inconsequential where neither the crime empty nor the weapon is sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory.

No report of Forensic Laboratory was tendered in evidence by the prosecution so as to ascertain that the weapon recovered from the accused was the same by which the deceased was done to death

Recovery of weapon was held to be inconsequential, in circumstances.

Accused had failed to point out any ill will or malice on the part of the complainant or police for his false implication in the case

Sufficient material was available on record, which connected the accused with the commission of alleged offence

Petition for grant of post-arrest bail was dismissed.

Incident was reported to the police with a delay of about two hours and ten minutes without there being any plausible explanation

Post-mortem was conducted after a noticeable delay of eight hours and thirty minutes

Presence of eye-witnesses on the spot at the time of incident was doubtful in nature because they had allegedly seen the incident from a close distance but had remained fail to intervene

Ocular account was in direct conflict with the medical evidence

Complainant, during investigation and trial,had changed the locale of injuries allegedly caused by accused on the person of deceased

Complainant was a chance witness as his residence was far away

Father of the deceased, who was inmate of the same house, was not produced during trial

Prosecution had withheld best available evidence and in view of Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 adverse inference could be drawn that had that witness been produced before the Trial Court he would not have supported the prosecution case

Solid evidence qua motive part of incident was not produced

Alleged recovery of 30 bore pistol at the instance of appellant was immaterial because no crime empty was secured by the Investigating Officer at time of spot inspection

Prosecution had failed to prove its case

Appeal was allowed and the accused was acquitted of the charge.

Prosecution alleged recovery of churri on the lead of accused but from the same house which had already been examined not by the witnesses at the time of recovery of dead body but was also inspected by the police as well and it was not expected that police had not searched out the whole house

Availability of churri at the site was not believable and that too in between the beddings placed on a cot

Churri was blood stained

Report of Forensic Laboratory revealed that the Chemical Examiner had observed human blood on the churri but the prosecution had not tendered original report and no evidence was available as to how duplicate report was brought on record without first requesting the Court to bring on record secondary evidence

Recovery was effected after about one month of the occurrence and the same was of no avail for the prosecution as the human blood would have disintegrated in a period of about three weeks

Recovery in the case was inconse-quential, in circumstances.

Statement of Investigating Officer and scaled site plan revealed that the dead body was present in an open field having wheat crop

Presence of complainant at the spot could not be doubted being inmate of the house but second eye-witness had no reason to visit the complainant's house

Occurrence had taken place at 09:30 a.m. and the dead body had remained present at crime scene for quite sufficient period as the application for registration of case was also drafted and submitted to the Investigating Officer at the crime scene but according to assertion of the Medical Officer, the dead body was received in the hospital at 09:30 a.m.

Eye-witnesses had claimed that the accused persons had fired from a distance of one pace but only one injury was found having burning and tattooing around it and all other injuries did not have the burning blackening and tattooing

Medical evidence was not in line with the prosecution story, rather it contradicted the same

Empties found from the crime scene were not fired from the weapons recovered on the indication of accused persons

Two defence witnesses had deposed that they were the persons who had firstly reached at the place of occurrence, that none of the eye-witnesses were available at the crime scene and that they had called the complainant

Investigating Officer had admitted that one of the defence witnesses was present at the place of occurrence whereas the other had appeared before him to plead innocence of an accused with the same version as narrated before the Trial Court

High Court observed that evidence of defence witnesses was sufficient to create reasonable doubt

Sentences awarded by Trial Court to the accused persons were set aside

Appeal was allowed and the accused persons were acquitted of the charge.

Qatl-i-amd, criminal intimidation, hurt by rash or negligent act, shajjah-i-khafifah, damiyah, abettor present when offence committed, rioting, armed with deadly weapon

Bail, refusal of

Recovery of weapon

Tentative assessment

Scope

Accused persons sought post-arrest bail as they were arrested for having been nominated in the FIR with specific role of being armed with pistols and making successive fire shots on the person of deceased

Other witnesses in their statements recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C., had also implicated the accused persons with same role in the commission of offence

Ocular evidence was corroborated by post-mortem report of the deceased

Contention of accused persons that as per FIR both of them had fired upon the deceased which hit him, whereas as per post-mortem report deceased received only one fire shot, could not be considered at bail stage as deeper appreciation of evidence was not permissible

Crime weapon recovered on the indication of accused persons had matched with the empties recovered from the place of incident

Petition for grant of bail was dismissed, in circumstances.

After arrest of all the three accused the complainant of the FIR himself came to the Investigating Officer with a submission that he had mistakenly mentioned the names of co-accused persons in the FIR and the Investigating Officer on the basis of the said statement had released the co-accused persons under S. 169, Cr.P.C.

Rule of consistency applied to the case as the co-accused with the role at par with the accused had been released by the police

Alleged recovery of weapon of offence from accused had become doubtful because the marginal witnesses of recovery memo. had submitted their affidavits which were part of the bail petition wherein both the witnesses had deposed that they had no knowledge about the alleged recovery from the accused

Petition for grant of bail was accepted, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah, common intention, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, possession of unlicensed arms

Appreciation of evidence

Recovery of weapon

Non-availability of report of Forensic Laboratory

Weapon not in working condition

Mitigating circumstance

Scope

Accused was alleged to have ineffectively fired at the complainant

Recovery of crime weapon was the only evidence which could play vital role in the case of accused to ascertain the true picture

Recovery of crime weapon on the pointation of the accused was made after a considerable delay i.e. on the last day of remand

Recovery witness stated that at the time of recovery, weapon was in working condition whereas Trial Court had noted that the weapon was not in working condition

Weapon recovered on the pointation of accused and the empties recovered from the spot were not even sent to the Forensic Laboratory

Strong mitigation in respect of the recovery, which in view of the role attributed to the accused was of vital importance as well as the active participation of the accused, was available in the case

Sentence of accused was reduced to the one already undergone by him

Appeal of accused was disposed of accordingly and that of complainant was dismissed.

Empties and crime weapon were dispatched together to the Forensic Laboratory and that too after twenty days of the arrest of the accused

Article 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was not applicable to the case, in circumstances.

Recovery of gun was held to be inconsequential, in circumstances.

When the ocular version of the prosecution is doubtful and unbelievable, the evidence of the recovery cannot be made basis to maintain the conviction of the accused.

Crime report was registered on the statement of deceased (injured at that time) who stated that he was going on a motorcycle to drop his daughter to Madrassa; that he was intercepted by accused along with others; that the accused gave kassi blow on his head whereas, the co-accused gave multiple club blows and that the incident had occurred in the backdrop of a previous grudge

Contents of FIR described that the alleged incident had taken place on 25-02-2012 whereas medical officer stated that he had attended the complainant on 24-02-2012

Daughter of complainant while narrating the incident stated that the accused persons pushed them as they were boarded on a motorcycle resultantly, they fell on the ground but such aspect of the case was not described in the FIR

Daughter of the complainant was not medically examined

Injuries attributed to co-accused persons were duly observed by the medical officer on the person of complainant but since the prosecution evidence was disbelieved to the extent of acquitted co-accused persons by the Trial Court, therefore, the same could not be relied upon without having independent and strong corroboratory evidence

Second eye-witness had not plausibly explained his presence at the place of occurrence

Prosecution had failed to prove the motive part of the incident

Weapon recovered from the possession of accused was not blood-stained

Wilful absconsion of accused was not proved through evidence

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Although the incident was unseen yet the accused was nominated by the complainant on the basis of statements made by two persons who had seen the deceased with the accused on the date of occurrence

Police had recorded statements of two witnesses who had stated that the accused had admitted his guilt before them

Pistol was recovered from the possession of accused and the same had matched with the empties secured from the place of occurrence

Offence alleged against the accused came within the purview of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Accused was found guilty during investigation conducted by the police

Sufficient incriminating material was available on record connecting the accused with the commission of offence

Grounds urged by the accused required deeper appreciation of evidence which could not be taken into consideration at bail stage

Petition for grant of bail was dismissed, in circumstances.

Photographic narration of the occurrence by both the witnesses by assigning specific injury to each of the accused in an extreme crisis and panic situation was highly improbable and not believable, especially when the occurrence had taken place in the dark hours of night and witnesses had statedly seen the occurrence in the light of motorcycle

Site plan did not show the houses of eye-witnesses around the place of occurrence

Eye-witnesses were chance witnesses and they had failed to establish their presence at odd hours of night

Recovery of 12-bore gun on the pointing out of accused in presence of negative report of Forensic Laboratory was inconsequential

Motive was not believable

Appeal filed by accused was accepted and petition for special leave to appeal filed by complainant against acquittal of accused persons was dismissed.

Held; possibility of manufacturing of the crime empty before its dispatch to the Forensic Laboratory could not be ruled out of consideration

Report of Forensic Laboratory was discarded, in circumstances.

Person from whose 'dera' pistols along with live bullets were recovered had never joined the proceedings, therefore, such recovery did not carry any judicial certainty

Witness of the recoveries during his cross-examination in very clear terms had stated that he had been giving statements in connection with the case but had never signed any document

Appeal against conviction were allowed, in circumstances.

Mere recovery of weapon without corroborative evidence which inspired confidence was not sufficient to convict the accused.

Empties secured from place of occurrence were sent for examination and it was proved that the same were fired from the pistol recovered on pointation of co-accused in pursuance of the disclosures made by accused

Accused was not known to complainant or prosecution witnesses and there was no motive for complainant party to involve accused in the case

Eye-witnesses identified the accused as the same person who fired upon deceased who was not falsely implicated

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Investigating officer had dispatched the blood stained clothes, crime shell and pistol to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis after a delay of more than two months without reasonable justification

Crime weapon and empty shell were sent together, therefore, the positive report had lost its evidentiary value

Appeal against conviction was accepted, in circumstances.

Held; no direct evidence of the crime in question was available and the prosecution case was structured upon circumstantial pieces of evidence i.e. disclosures of accused persons along with recovery of crime weapon, corroborated by positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory and judicial confession of accused persons recorded by Judicial Magistrate under S. 164, Cr.P.C.

Testimony of Judicial Magistrate revealed that confessional statements of accused persons were voluntary and true and the procedural defect, if any, in recording the statements stood removed by the question put by the Magistrate to the accused to the effect that they were not bound to make any statement and if a confessional statement was made by them, the same could be used against them as evidence

Accused did not directly or indirectly take the plea before the Trial Court at any stage that the confessions were involuntary

Accused, though, had retracted their confessions, but the same could be relied upon, because the events disclosed by them for the purpose of commission of crime in their confessional statements including the manner adopted by them was fully corroborated by prosecution evidence available on record

Motive for killing the deceased indicated that their confessions were voluntary and true and the same could not be discarded for the sole reason of having been recorded after six/seven days in view of the facts and circumstances of the case

Crime weapon was recovered in pursuance of the disclosures made by the accused persons and the pistol along with the empties secured from the place of occurrence were sent for the report of Ballistic Expert

Report of Ballistic Expert showed that the crime empties were fired from the same pistol

Circumstances highlighted excluded every hypothesis of the innocence of accused persons and thus the Trial Court had rightly relied upon circumstantial evidence

No space existed to entertain any hypothesis of innocence, guilty verdict called for no interference

High Court, while attending to the sentence of death passed against one of the accused, observed that though all the other formalities required by the law vis-a-vis recording confessional statements under S. 164, Cr.P.C. were duly complied with, yet the same were recorded after a delay of six/seven days

Such delay was an irregularity not vitiating the confessional statement itself but put the court to caution

Offence in question was seemingly committed by the accused under the influence of absconding co-accused on account of his liasion with her

Alteration of death penalty into imprisonment for life was a conscionable wage, in circumstances

Penalty of death awarded to the accused was altered into imprisonment for life.

Investigating Officer had recovered the crime weapon from the bushes on the pointation of the accused after more than three months of the incident

Weapon was recovered from an abandoned place which was neither in the possession nor in the ownership of accused

Weapon was not sent to the Forensic Laboratory

Prosecution could not take benefit from such recovery, in circumstances.

When neither the recovered crime weapon was sent to the Forensic Laboratory nor blood was found on the same nor was it recovered from the exclusive possession of the accused; High Court held that such piece of evidence was of no help to the prosecution's case.

Prosecution dispatched the crime weapon and casings together for forensic analysis after more than one month without any reason

Prosecution had failed to explain as to where the recovered material was kept and in whose custody

Sending of firearm along with empties lost its evidentiary value, as such report could not be considered as corroborative evidence

Prosecution, in circumstances, had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt, therefore, impugned judgment was set aside and the accused was acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed.

Recovery of weapon is a corroborative piece of evidence and in case where direct evidence fails, corroborative piece of evidence is of no avail.

Report of Forensic Laboratory was in positive but the same could not be taken into consideration being not procured in accordance with law

Prosecution had to ensure safe dispatch of the crime empties and weapon to the Forensic Laboratory, which was not done

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Recovery is a corroborative piece of evidence and in cases where direct evidence fails, corroborative piece of evidence is of no avail.

Incident had occurred on 28.2.2014, accused was arrested on 03-03-2014 and the pistol along with empties was received by the Forensic Science Laboratory on 9.3.2014

Held; the delay could not be taken as an abnormal delay which could spoil the prosecution case.

Recovery of dagger at the instance of accused was immaterial because it was effected after about six months of the incident and it was not expected from the accused to keep such weapon because during such period he had ample time to destroy the weapon

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused and others were alleged to have indiscriminately fired at the deceased when he along with his relatives was present in the shop of a barber

Recovery of rifle was insignificant when seen in the context of non-recovery of crime empties from the place of occurrence

Report of Forensic Laboratory was available on the record but the same was not exhibited

Report was only to the effect that the weapon was in working order and nothing more

Sentence of the accused was reduced, in circumstances.

Accused was not alleged to have hatchet with him at the time of occurrence rather he was only stated to be equipped with gun

Hatchet was recovered after 26 days of the occurrence

Blood disintegrated in a period of about three weeks, therefore, reports of Chemical Examiner and of Serologist were of no help to the case of prosecution

Several persons of the vicinity had attracted to the place of recovery but none of them was cited as witness

Recovery of gun could not be considered as recovery from exclusive possession of the accused

Prosecution could not produce any witness through whom hatchet, empties and gun were got deposited in the concerned offices of Chemical Examiner and Forensic Science Laboratory

Investigating Officer deposed that said articles were sent through a constable but the constable, while appearing as a witness, had not stated so

Prosecution failed in proving safe custody of allegedly recovered hatchet, empties and .12 bore gun from the date of recovery till their receipt in the offices of concerned laboratories.

Recovery is only a corroborative piece of evidence.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, abetment, common intention

Act of terrorism

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Recovery of weapon

Safe custody

Sending of empties along with recovered weapon

Effect

Accused, along with three others, was alleged to have murdered a police constable by firing on him within the view of his partner constable

Empties were recovered on the day of the incident and yet those were not sent for ballistic examination immediately but were sent after an unexplained delay of 7 days with no proof of safe custody along with the firearm, which was apparently recovered from the accused at about the same time when he was arrested 7 days after the incident

Delay in sending the empties before the weapon was recovered and sending them together (empties and weapon) to Ballistic Expert, it could not be ruled out that the empties came from the weapon once it was recovered

Report of Forensic Science Laboratory could not be safely relied upon which in any event was only supportive evidence

Impugned judgment was set aside, in circumstances and by extending benefit of doubt, accused was acquitted of the charge.

Recovered gun and empty cartridge was not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory nor such report was produced by prosecution during trial therefore, recovery of gun had become doubtful

Prosecution failed to prove case against accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt

Even a single doubt in story of prosecution was disastrous and its benefit must go to accused

High Court set aside conviction and sentence to accused and acquitted him of charge

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that when the deceased, complainant and his driver were going towards the bus stop to drop the accused and acquitted co-accused in a car, the accused shot the deceased in the neck and fled away

Driver had reported the incident to the police within 45 minutes

Driver was a natural and independent witness

Driver had given evidence that the accused who was sitting in the back of the car had shot the deceased in the neck

Evidence of driver was corroborated by medical evidence

Empty which was recovered from the car had matched with the pistol recovered from the possession of accused

Diary sheet of the Trial Court showed that the accused had admitted his involvement in the crime

Non-production of complainant was not enough to detract from the evidence of driver, the corroboratory medical evidence and other supportive evidence, even if an adverse inference was drawn

Prosecution had neither alleged any motive against the accused nor had it proven the same-High Court, while taking into account that no motive was proved and that there were some doubts in the prosecution case albeit insufficient to lead to an acquittal, reduced the sentence of death to imprisonment for life.

Prosecution case was that the accused party assaulted on complainant party, due to which brother of complainant died, complainant and his other brother sustained injuries

Record showed that handle of hand pump, one iron rod and three hatchets were allegedly recovered from the accused persons

None of the recovered items was blood stained

Memo of recovery was completely silent about the place from where said articles were recovered by the police

Nothing was on record to show that the same were sent for any forensic analysis to establish their use in the alleged offence

Recovery of said articles was of no consequence

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

In absence of Forensic Science Laboratory Report, the recovery of weapon of offence could not be considered as corroborative piece of evidence and the same could not be made basis of conviction

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

One of the eye-witnesses deposed that the accused cried loudly, whereupon, he looked towards the accused, at that time accused and deceased were in front of each other, thereafter, accused fired, which hit the deceased

Said eye-witness had not stated in his statement recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. that the accused raised any cry

Another eye-witness deposed in her statement that she was grazing her cattle whereas accused and his son was cutting grass

Deceased forbade them from cutting grass, whereupon, accused fired which hit the deceased at his eye

Medical report also supported the prosecution version

Complainant had specifically alleged the motive of occurrence in the FIR and the prosecution witnesses had established the motive behind the occurrence in their statements

High Court observed that aggravating and mitigating factors justified a sentence lesser than 25 years

Appeals filed by convict were accepted partially and he was convicted under S.302(c), P.P.C. and was awarded 14 years imprisonment, in circumstances.

Report of Forensic Laboratory revealed that the pistol recovered on the pointation of accused was found in mechanical operating condition with safety features functioning properly and that the bullet recovered from the place of occurrence was fired from the pistol recovered on the pointation of accused

Appeals were dismissed.

Contention of accused was that as per medical report the deceased received gun shot while the investigating agency recovered 30 bore pistol from the accused, which made the whole case doubtful

Held; gun meant a weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles were propelled by explosive force, typically making a characteristic loud, sharp noise

Smallest of all firearms (guns) was handgun and there were two common types of handguns, revolvers and pistols

Pistol also came within the definition of "gun" and gunshot meant any type of gun whether long gun or short gun.

Accused was arrested after 5 days of the occurrence whereas accused, in the presence of police constable, confessed his guilt and recorded his disclosure on the day of his arrest and the said disclosure was followed by the recovery of TT pistol

Investigating officer in his cross-examination admitted that no crime empty was recovered from the place of occurrence, while infact according to record and more particularly from the statement of a witness it appeared that three empties were recovered from the place of occurrence, which were taken into possession through seizure memo

Prosecution ought to have sent the three collected empties and the TT pistol to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for matching with empties and it was the FSL report which could confirm that the recovered TT pistol was the same through which the deceased was murdered, but that was not done

Recovered TT pistol could not be presumed to be the same through which the murder of the deceased was committed or that the same was recovered on the pointation of the appellant

Without recovery of any incriminatory article or discovery of new facts, disclosure of accused recorded in police custody was not admissible

Prosection had not succeeded in establishing the recovery of TT pistol on the pointation of appellant, hence the same was not helpful to the case of prosecution

Appeal was allowed.

When the ocular testimony fails to establish the case of prosecution against the accused then recovery of crime weapon, being corroborative piece of evidence, also losses its evidentiary value.

Recovery of .12 bore gun from accused was held to be inconsequential where report of Forensic Science Laboratory revealed that three crime empties of .12 bore and one gun of .30 bore were received on the same day at the Forensic Science Laboratory.

Recovery proceedings were conducted in violation of S. 103, Cr.P.C. and thus it was hit by exclusionary rule of evidence and could not be considered.