In our considered opinion, this entire evidence is more than
sufficient to prove the involvement of the Accused in the commission of
the offence. However, according to learned counsel for the Accused, the
recovery evidence, in the instant case, is not convincing and reliable as
none of the witnesses have stated that the articles like the gold ornaments
seized from possession of the Accused or at their instance were sealed.
Moreover, even if they were sealed at the time of recovery, as the
evidence of PW-1 Chetan proves that he was shown those ornaments and
articles for the purpose of identification, and there is no evidence to prove
that subsequent thereto, they were again sealed. To substantiate his
submission, the learned counsel for the Accused has relied upon the two
authorities that of Tulshiram Bhanudas Kambale & Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra, 2000 CRI.L.J. 1566, and Amarjit Singh alias Babbu Vs.
State of Punjab, 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 217.
39. In our considered opinion, however, none of these authorities can
be made applicable to the facts of the present case, because, in the first
authority, issue was relating to human blood found on the recovered
articles, whereas, in the second authority the revolver found on the spot
was not sealed, hence it was held that the possibility of tampering could
not be ruled out. In the instant case, the articles seized are the gold
ornaments. Therefore, there was neither the possibility of tampering nor
that of the ornaments changing their character or colour in any way, even if they were not sealed.
sufficient to prove the involvement of the Accused in the commission of
the offence. However, according to learned counsel for the Accused, the
recovery evidence, in the instant case, is not convincing and reliable as
none of the witnesses have stated that the articles like the gold ornaments
seized from possession of the Accused or at their instance were sealed.
Moreover, even if they were sealed at the time of recovery, as the
evidence of PW-1 Chetan proves that he was shown those ornaments and
articles for the purpose of identification, and there is no evidence to prove
that subsequent thereto, they were again sealed. To substantiate his
submission, the learned counsel for the Accused has relied upon the two
authorities that of Tulshiram Bhanudas Kambale & Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra, 2000 CRI.L.J. 1566, and Amarjit Singh alias Babbu Vs.
State of Punjab, 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 217.
39. In our considered opinion, however, none of these authorities can
be made applicable to the facts of the present case, because, in the first
authority, issue was relating to human blood found on the recovered
articles, whereas, in the second authority the revolver found on the spot
was not sealed, hence it was held that the possibility of tampering could
not be ruled out. In the instant case, the articles seized are the gold
ornaments. Therefore, there was neither the possibility of tampering nor
that of the ornaments changing their character or colour in any way, even if they were not sealed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.441 OF 2005
Futarmal Kapurji Borana V The State of Maharashtra
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.441 OF 2005
Futarmal Kapurji Borana V The State of Maharashtra
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, ACTING C.J. &
DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
PRONOUNCED ON : 17TH DECEMBER, 2015
Citation; 2016 ALLMR(CRI)901
Citation; 2016 ALLMR(CRI)901
