19. So far as the co-accused, namely, Abdul Salam is concerned, the learned appellate court was of the view that charge under Section 411 of IPC was duly based on the confessional statement of accused-Abdul Salam because he was found fleeing away from the place of occurrence in fearful condition by one of the witnesses, namely, Md. Sahabuddin, who has stated about it in his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The learned appellate court also recorded that during the course of investigation, the investigating officer of the case caught hold of Md. Abdul Salam who had stated about all incident and as per his identification, two mobile phones were recovered from the possession of the present petitioners, one from each of them. The recovered mobile phones were duly identified by the informant in T.I.P. The learned appellate court was of the view that no recovery was made from the possession of Md. Abdul Salam and on his confession, two mobile sets have been recovered and it did not appear to the learned appellate court that the two mobile phone sets were kept by Md. Abdul Salam. Since no recovery was made from the possession of Md. Abdul Kalam, the learned appellate court was of the view that charge under Section 411 of IPC was not proved against him beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly, acquitted the accused-Abdul Salam for offence under Section 411 of IPC.
