presence. The learned trial court doubted the recovery of weapon of crime. In such a situation, the disclosure statement of the accused became inadmissible in the eyes of law, as the same was hit by the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The other important factor was that no blood was detected on the tyre liver with which the injury was alleged to have been caused by the respondent/accused. As per FSL report Ex. PW-13/J, ‘Blood could not be detected on exhibit ‘1’ . On the basis of the FSL report, the trial court has observed that through the scientific investigation of the alleged weapon of crime, it cannot be connected with the commission of crime. Kamal (PW-2) identified the clothes worn by the accused being blue colour jacket (Ex.P1) (Colly), which were stated to have been recovered from the truck of PW-2. However, the said blue colour jacket was of the deceased, as per the testimony of police witnesses as well as PW-1 Rajinder Prasad, the father of the deceased. In such a situation, the learned trial court has held that the eye-witness was not clear even about the clothes worn by the accused and by the deceased at the time of occurrence. Witness PW-2 did not remain firm on his stand regarding causing of injuries, as he deposed before the court that “I cannot say who had inflicted injuries on whom.”
