topography of the place of occurrence), found two persons, namely, Govardhan Ram and Harishankar Ram in suspected condition who were apprehended and on interrogation, they made inculpatory extrajudicial confessional statement. As they pointed out, certain articles, broken box etc were recovered from a maize field for which seizure list was prepared. On the basis of inculpatory extra-judicial confessional statement, Munna Nut was apprehended and on his pointing out, booty was recovered for which seizure list was prepared. Then thereafter, Titil Nut was apprehended and on his pointing out, the booty was recovered. They were put on TIP. Articles recovered from their possession were also put on TIP, accused were not identified but articles were identified. Then thereafter, those articles were returned back to the informant as per order. Then submitted charge-sheet. During cross-examination, as is evident from para-5, he had stated that no specific identification mark was put over article having recovered on the pointing out of Munna Nut. However, from his evidence, it is evident that prosecution had not cared to explain the discloser made by PW-2 as well as PW-3 that the appellant was shown to them at the police station. That being so, there happens to be no denial at the end of the prosecution that the appellant was shown to the PWs at the police station since before.
