below, P.Ws.2 to 4 are the victims and they identified M.Os.1 to 3 as the properties belonging to them. In this case, there is no test identification parade and P.Ws.1 to 4 have not identified the accused in the Court. Therefore, the only evidence that is available on record is about confession of the accused and seizure of the properties. As can be seen from the material evidence on record, P.Ws.5 and 6 are said to be the panch witnesses for the confession; P.W.5 did not support the prosecution case and P.W.6 is said to be independent panch witness, who is said to be journalist, having frequent visits to the Police Station. According to him, A.1 to A.3 have taken to the shop of Subhani and the said Subhani has produced the said items, which were seized by Police. Evidently, Subhani was not examined by the prosecution to show that the accused have come to him and pledged the articles M.Os.1 to 3, which were seized by Police. The Court below found that non-examination of Subhani is not properly examined. In the absence of such, mere evidence of P.W.6, cannot be taken into consideration and consequently there is no proof of confession or seizure of the property since there is no proof of pledge by the accused pointing to the shop of Subhani, who is said to have produced the property. Therefore, There are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the Court below, which has appreciated the evidence in a right perspective.
