Court on the same day, the mahazar witness examined to speak to the arrest and recovery from petitioner/accused is PW-9. PW-9 has spoken to arrest and recovery having been effected at 11.30 a.m. More importantly, PW-9, in cross, has admitted to enjoying a very close relationship with the prosecution party and has admitted to the presence of around 50 persons at the time when recovery was effected. None other has been examined to speak on recovery effected from petitioner/accused and through evidence of DW-1, Manager of Co-operative Bank, wherein PW-9 was employed as a cashier and through marking Ex.D2, attendance register, it has been shown that PW-9 was at his place of employment both in the morning and evening of 25.07.2006. In such circumstance, his evidence of having taken half-a-day leave and thereafter, having stayed away from work the whole day is hard to believe. Recovery effected at the hands of accused becomes suspect. While so, the charge u/s.380 IPC would not hold good. PWs.2 and 7 are daughter and mother. Admittedly, the mother lived upstairs while the daughter lived in the ground floor. Appellant/accused was an employee of PW-7 for over 10 years. In the
