recovery of lost article under Ex. P.5-recovery panchanama. P.Ws.1 and 4 in their evidence deposed that on 22.09.1999, the first respondent/accused was brought to the police station and said article was recovered. During the cross examination, P.W.1 stated that after lodging the complaint, he and one constable went to the house of the first respondent/accused and brought the parcel and handed over the same in the police station. According to Ex.P.5, the Investigating Officer arrested the accused on 24.09.1999 at 06.00 PM at House No.1-9-139, Sanjaynagar Street, Mahaboobnagar and recovered the foreign parcel (MO.1) in the presence of P.Ws.6 and 7. This fact is contrary to evidence P.Ws.1 and 4, which was considered by the High Court in Crl.R.C.No.1730 of 2005 and found that the Courts below though noticed this discrepancy failed to extend the benefit of it to the accused; on the other hand, the Courts below observed that it is only a minor discrepancy. But, in the view of the High Court, the observations made by the Courts below that it is a minor discrepancy is not correct. When there is quite contradicting version with regard to the arrest of the first respondent/accused and recovery of the stolen property between the material prosecution witnesses and the contents in Ex.P.5, the benefit of doubt must go in favour of the first respondent/accused.
