prepared the nazari naksha (Ex.P/5), but he did not say that the suit house was owned by the appellant and the no such document showing that the suit house was owned by the appellant has been filed. As such, it appears that though the dead body was allegedly recovered from the house of the appellant, but firstly, recovery memo/panchnama has not been prepared for the reasons best known to the prosecution; secondly, that the house was admittedly, locked from the outside, but according to PW-6 it was broken in presence of the police personnel and no panchnama of the said fact as well as the recovery of the broken lock have been prepared. Patwari, Nageshwar Yadav, (PW-5), also did not say that the place of occurrence/house in question was owned or in exclusive possession of the appellant herein. As such, it could not be established that the suit house was owned or it was exclusive possession of the appellant on the date of offence and the prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt that the dead body was recovered from the house of the appellant and his presence was also not recorded in the inquest report (Ex.P/11), therefore, the important chain/main chain of the recovery of dead body from the house of the appellant is missing.
