Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

xii) Insofar as the recovery of the blood-stained clothes allegedly worn by the Appellant is concerned, it is submitted that the prosecution had failed to establish that the same were connected to the Appellant or other co-convicts. It is pointed out that no specific description as such in respect of the clothes worn by the Appellant as well as other co-convicts/Appellants was given by the PW- 1/complainant in his statement (Ex. PW-1/A) recorded by IO/PW-25 and the latter in his testimony recorded before the learned Trial Court had admitted the fact that he did not have any specific description of the Appellants prior to their arrest. It is further pointed out that the said clothes of the Appellant as well as the other co-convicts were never sent to FSL for examination.

the blood-stained clothes was affected from a public place and no independent witnesses were associated during the said recovery. Therefore, the same causes doubt over the legitimacy and credibility of the said recovery. It is further the case of the Appellant that the said clothes were planted so as to falsely implicate him as well as other co- convicts in the present case. It is further submitted that the said blood- stained clothes which were allegedly worn by the Appellant during the commission of the murder of the deceased were not identified by the prosecution witnesses, i.e., PW-1 and PW-9, during trial and thus, the presence of the Appellant has not been proved at the crime spot. It is further pointed out that PW-1 and PW-9 had not provided any specific description of the clothes worn by the Appellant on the date of the incident.

(c) This witness clearly identifies the person, he grappled and overpowered, i.e., Rusy @ Surender, and thus, he had sufficient opportunity to see him from very close range. Even, the description of the assailants/accused persons was mentioned in the rukka (Ex. PW-1/A). Although, it was not specific, the general description was there;