31. The evidence of P.W.11, Prafulla Kakoty, the I.O., reveals that the appellant made the above disclosure statement after he was arrested on 17.08.2012, and further, pursuant thereto, on the following day, that is on, 18.08.2012, at around 9:15 am, he (P.W. 11) along with the appellant, P.W.7, Manoj Gogoi, P.W. 8, Sunit Chutia, P.W. 9, Niren Boruah and PW.10, Dibyajyoti Mahanta went to the bank of a pond located on the side of the road, leading to Sripuria and Morankhari villages and on being pointed out by the appellant, the police seized one pant (trouser) and one sporting (T-shirt), which belonged to the deceased by Ext.9, the seizure memo. His (P.W. 11) evidence further reveals that after seizure of the articles, mentioned above, the statement of the appellant vide Ext.14 was recorded to that effect. P.Ws 7, 8, 9 & 10 have corroborated the aforesaid discovery of fact at the instance of the deceased and he recognised the relevant Exts. 7, 8, & 9, the seizure memos and P.W. 10, the police photographer recognised Mat. Ext. 2 and Mat. Ext. 3, the seized articles namely, the Mini DVD cassette and clothes respectively. The prosecution, however, omitted to exhibit the seized materials to the relevant witnesses, namely, P.W. 7, brother of the deceased, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 for identification, who could best say, whether those articles belonged to the deceased. The pertinent question that arises is whether these seized materials indicate beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had really killed the deceased? In this context, the recovery of those incriminating articles and their evidentiary value have to be considered in the light of the other relevant circumstances as well and the chain of the events suggesting the complicity of the appellant in the offence. Because, in criminal proceeding, burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between discovery of the material objects and their relation in the commission of the offence.
