Penal Code, 1860–Sec. 302 [Corresponding Sec. 103 of BNS, 2023]–Arms Act, 1959–Sec. 25–Evidence Act, 1872–Sec. 27–Conviction–Sustainability–PW 1, the alleged eye-witness of the murder, disclosed the name of the appellant after five day of the incident in form of supplementary statement–Initially, the appellant was not named in the FIR–Recovery of weapon was effected from the place accessible to other family members of the appellant–Prosecution failed to establish that the said recovery distinctly relates to the commission of the offence or that the weapon so recovered was the same which was used to commit murder–The chain of recovery linking the seizure, storage and deposit of the material exhibits remained incomplete and was not duly proved–Alleged motive projected by the prosecution primarily pertains to the co-accused persons, who have either not been charge-sheeted or have been acquitted–Held, Courts below committed error in convicting the appellant.
