Recovery evidence must be reliable and consistent; convictions under IPC and the Arms Act were set aside.

Conviction under Sections 399 and 402 IPC was set aside because the same basis had already been rejected in the connected matter, so the conviction and sentence could not stand. Conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act was also unsustainable because the alleged recovery of knives was not proved by reliable evidence: the recovery witnesses were inconsistently supported, one material witness turned hostile, other recovery witnesses were not examined, and the testimony contained material contradictions. The appellants were acquitted and the remaining custodial consequences were directed to cease.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be sustained; (ii) Whether the recovery of knives was proved so as to sustain the conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be sustained.

Analysis: The conviction under Sections 399 and 402 was treated as covered by the earlier decision in the connected matter, and the same basis was applied here. On that footing, the conviction and sentence for those offences could not stand.

Conclusion: The conviction under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the recovery of knives was proved so as to sustain the conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

Analysis: The recovery witnesses were not consistently supported by the evidence, one material witness was declared hostile, other recovery witnesses were not examined, and the testimony on recovery contained material contradictions. The Court therefore found that the seizure of knives from the appellants had not been proved.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 was not sustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appellants were acquitted of the offences for which they had been convicted, and the remaining custodial consequences were directed to cease.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal conviction based on recovery evidence cannot be sustained where the seizure is not proved through reliable and consistent testimony, especially when material recovery witnesses are withheld and the available witness evidence is contradictory.

---