Recovery evidence requires independent witnesses, proper sealing, and an unbroken custody chain to withstand reasonable doubt.

Recovery evidence based only on police testimony was treated with caution because no genuine effort was made to join available independent witnesses at the search and seizure stage. The non-sealing of the recovered revolver at the spot, coupled with the absence of proof of an unbroken custody chain before production to the Arms Expert, created a serious risk of tampering. On these facts, the recovery became unsafe to rely upon, the prosecution version was left doubtful, and the accused was entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction could be sustained on the basis of police evidence alone when no attempt was made to join available independent witnesses at the time of search and recovery; (ii) Whether failure to seal the recovered weapon and the missing link in custody of the seized article created reasonable doubt about the prosecution case.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction could be sustained on the basis of police evidence alone when no attempt was made to join available independent witnesses at the time of search and recovery.

Analysis: The requirement to associate independent and respectable persons of the locality at the time of search is material to the evidentiary weight of the recovery. Police testimony is not automatically inadmissible merely because no independent witness is examined, but where the record shows that no attempt was made to join persons admittedly available, the recovery evidence becomes less trustworthy and its weight is materially affected.

Conclusion: The prosecution recovery evidence was not safe to rely upon without corroboration, and this issue was answered in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether failure to seal the recovered weapon and the missing link in custody of the seized article created reasonable doubt about the prosecution case.

Analysis: Non-sealing of the recovered revolver at the spot was a serious infirmity because it left open the possibility of tampering. The absence of evidence showing the custody of the weapon between seizure and production before the Arms Expert further broke the chain of custody and weakened the prosecution version.

Conclusion: The defects in sealing and custody created reasonable doubt, and this issue was answered in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence could not be sustained because the recovery evidence suffered from material infirmities and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: Where recovery evidence is unsupported by a genuine effort to join available independent witnesses and the seized article is neither properly sealed nor shown to have an unbroken chain of custody, the prosecution case becomes unreliable and the accused is entitled to acquittal on reasonable doubt.

---