The State vs 1. Ravi @ Bauna on 29 April, 2014
But recovery of an object pursuant to the information supplied
by an accused in custody is different from the searching endevour envisaged in
chapter VII of the Code . Hence, it is fallacious impression that when recovery
is effected pursuant to any statement made by the accused the documents
prepared by the investigating officer contemporaneous with such recovery
must necessarily be attested by independent witnesses. Of course, if any such
statement leads recovery of any article it is opened to the IO to take the
signature of any person present at that time, on the document prepared by
such recovery. But if no witness was present or if no person had agreed to
SC No. 118/14 State vs Ravi @ Bauna etc (Page 21 of 26 )
FIR no. 484/2008
D.O.D 29.4.2014 P.S Narela
u/s 302/34 IPC
affix his signature on the document, it is difficult to lay down as a proposition of
law, that the document so prepared by the police officer must be treated as
tainted and the recovery evidence unreliable . The Court has to consider the
evidence of the investigating officer who deposed to the fact of recovery based
on the statement elicited from the accused on its own worth."