Krishna Kumar @ Pappu Vs State of UP

"Section 27 is an exception to sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. It is based on the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent (discovered) facts.…sections 100 and 165 CrPC: Do not relate to recovery on pointing out of the accused; and Are not applicable to the discovery under section 27 of the Evidence Act…..it cannot be said, as a matter of law that: The signatures of the accused have to be obtained on the recovery memo; or An endorsement is required that the accused has refused to accept it; and Merely failure to do so, vitiates the recovery. ……No mandatory provision has been brought to our notice that the disclosure memo should be separately prepared. The fact that they are often prepared, and perhaps it is better if they are prepared, does not mean that in case disclosure memo is not prepared then the recovery is unreliable……There is a discrepancy between the quantity of the jewellery mentioned in the FIR and the quantity of the jewellery recovered. In the recovered articles, the silver jewellery and Rupees are less but golden jewellery is more. But this is natural rather than unusual.”