Now turning to evidence of the informant as well as the supporting prosecution witnesses, we find that it does not inspire confidence. During incident not even a single shot was fired by the dacoits even when they were being chased. This itself is a very unnatural conduct which does not appeal to reason at all. In respect of the recovery of country made pistol and other fire arm weapon from the possession of accused, the evidence in that respect is also very incredible and does not inspire any confidence. The Investigating Officer did not examine the said weapon either himself or from an expert to verify whether they are in working condition or not. On over all analysis of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that in order to work out the previous dacoity case, these appellants were apprehended by the police for the best reasons known to them and were implicated in the present incident without there being any credible evidence against them. This court from perusal of the recovery memo finds that incriminating material and illegal weapons does not bear the signature of accused on it. Although signature of an accused on the recovery memo is not the mandatory requirement of the law. It is only the signature of the witnesses, which are necessarily required. But if the defence version is that the appellants-accused were arrested and no such incriminating article or illegal weapons had been recovered from them then it has got relevance in order to ensure the presence of the accused persons along with the witnesses on the spot. Submit