Recoveries

Recoveries being purely corroboratory in nature could not be considered to sustain conviction on a capital charge.

Recoveries effected only on the pointation of accused are admissible as incriminating evidence against the accused.

Evidence of recovery being a corroborative evidence, by itself is not sufficient to convict the accused in the absence of substantive evidence.

Such confessional statement and evidence of recoveries only, being purely of corroborative in nature are not capable to bring home charge against accused in absence of direct evidence.

Recovery of same weapon from accused in his trial for murder of M on evidence relating to same recovery in accused's subsequent trial for murder of S

Previous judgment

Complete absence of evidence as to whether weapons allegedly recovered from accused were ever deposited in Malkhana; that they were ever sent to Forensic Expert, and if so, whether they matched with empty cartridges found at spot-Trial Court observing that prosecution did not, at all, intend to rely on recovery of weapon recovered from accused in case relating to murder of M and reserved same for use in trial of case regarding murder of S

Mere fact that trial Court in case of trial relating to murder of M refused to rely on recovery of weapon from accused as a corroboratory piece of evidence, because of total absence of evidence to connect same with crime in question, held, did not in any way bar trial Court trying case of murder of S from relying on said recovery when al

Accused who was not shown to have ,absconded and had thus opportunity to get rid of articles, held, would not keep articles in his house for four days until he was arrested

Police Officer had not even stated as to from where he had arrested accused, and, therefore, it could be presumed that accused had been arrested from place of his ordinary residence

Accused, therefore, had ample opportunity to have disposed of articles in circumstances.

Recovery-Accused coming armed at places of occurrence and killing four persons-Prosecution case fully supported by four eye-witnesses, two of whom were injured

Presence of such witnesses at place of occurrence not disputed

Conviction of accused, therefore based upon ocular testimony furnished by such four witnesses

Eye-witnesses, two of whom were natural witnesses. though related to deceased but no enmity or their motive against accused could be established

No improvement in any material aspect of case found so as to discredit direct evidence of such witnesses

Recovery record found consistent with statement of Investigating Officer

No doubt regarding honesty of Investigating Officer found

No material was available on record to suggest that Investigating Officer had any motive to co-operate

No relationship of such witness with deceased or his falsely deposing to factum of recoveries at behest of accused established

No enmity suggested as to why witness would falsely depose against accused

No improbability in version of such witness as to his presence at time of occurrence found for he lived not far away and would have been attracted by murder committed in village

Such witness, held, was rightly held to be an independent witness

Contention that as such witness had not affirmatively stated as to how incriminating articles were made into a parcel his evidence could not be accepted, repelled.

Recovery-Mere fact that recovery witness was not a person of locality, held, was not a proper reason for excluding evidence of such recovery witness-Section 103, Cr.P.C. is applicable to a search made under Chap. VII, Cr.P.C. in pursuance of a search warrant.-

S. 302/34-Recovery-Crime weapon-Recovery witnesses not examined to establish fact of recovery-No evidence on record present to sustain that crime weapon (rifle) was sent to Fornesic Laboratory for examination Such recovery, held, should not be taken into consideration-Contention that matching of empty with rifle in question, should be accepted as corroboration against participation of accused, repelled in circumstances.

[Recovery].

Ss. 27 & 6-Res gestae-Recovery-Recovery of incriminating article at accused's instance-Admissibility, extent of-Held, admissible only when accused's words or action leading to discovery contemporaneous with recovery as forming part of res gestae.-[Recovery].

S. 302-Recovery-Mere recovery, in absence of other evidence, held, would not be sufficient to furnish a foundation for conviction in capital charge.-[Recovery-Evidence].

Held; not reliable.-[Recovery].

S. 27-Recovery-Crime weapon recovered in brazen disregard of mandatory provisions of law-Recovery, held, of no evidentiary value.-[Recovery].

Recovery of incriminating articles made' from a place lying unattended and without lock-Deserves no credence Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34.

Crime cartridges recovered by boy of nine years from scene of crime immediately after escape of culprits-Handed over to police "next day" though police had reached spot during night-Delay unexplained-Suspicious circumstance. Recovery

Particular gun not proved to have been recovered from particular accused - Ballistic expert's evidence connecting particular cartridge with particular gun-Valueless.

Criminal trial - Recovery - Accused himself producing weapon of offence before Police-Such production may be taken as supporting circumstantial evidence against accused.

Recoveries -No evidence that crime weapon was stained with human blood-Mere securing of weapon at instance of accused not a circumstance against him-Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 27.

Recoveries Murder-Mere fact that witnesses of recoveries of crime weapons were residents of place other than the place of occurrence-No ground for holding that recoveries were not established or that evidence of witnesses could not be relied upon Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103.

Recoveries Production of blood-stained hatchet-By itself not enough to convict.