circumstances for proving the prosecution case. Just because of the police could not seize the weapon during investigation, the accused cannot escape from the clutches of law if the alleged incident constituting a definite offence committed voluntarily and intentionally stands otherwise proved on facts by satisfactory evidence. In this case, the police could not seize the weapon of offence because the accused vanished from the locality immediately after the incident. He remained outside for months, and he came back after the police submitted final report in court. In such cases, the police cannot wait indefinitely to submit final report. The accused, who destroyed or abandoned the weapon of offence, and conveniently absconded from the locality for months, thereby obstructing the recovery of the weapon of offence, cannot be heard to contend later, that failure on the part of the police to recover the weapon of offence is suspicious, and the benefit of that failure must be given to the accused. Here is a case where the accused either abandoned or destroyed the weapon of offence, and vanished from the locality. In such a situation, the police
