Jackaran Singh vs State Of Punjab on 20 April, 1995
He further
contended that the materials recovered were not sealed by the police.
Hairpin and bangles said to have been recovered were not produced before
the Court and these circumstances will make, all the more. recovery
doubtful. Counsel relied on the decision of this Court rendered in
Jackaran Singh vs State of Punjab (AIR 1995 SC 2345), wherein
in paragraph 8 at page SC 2347, it was pointed out that the disclosure
statement inspires no confidence because none of the two panch witnesses
Yash Pal and Sukhdev Singh have been examined at the Trial and secondly
because the disclosure statement does not bear the signatures or the thumb
impression of the appellant and also the recovery memo does not bear the
signatures or thumb impression of the accused. Every case has to be decided
on its own facts. The facts of that case do not fit in the facts of the case at
hand. In the present case as already noticed PW-6 and PW-12 were
examined to prove the disclosure as well as the recovery pursuant to the
disclosure statement of the appellant. In the instant case, while it is true that
neither the disclosure statement nor the recovery memo bear the signatures
of the accused but the fact remains that pursuant to the disclosure statement
MOs have been recovered from the well and dug out from a place which is
pointed out by the appellant leaves no manner of doubt that the recovery of
MOs has been made on the basis of voluntary disclosure statement.