1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay C.R.A. 485 of 2009 Santosh Debnath -Vs- The State of West Bengal For the Appellant : Mr. Malay Bhattacharyya Mr. Subrojyoti Ghosal For the State : Mr. Avishek Sinha Judgment on : 20.07.2026 Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:- 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated April 06, 2009 and April 07, 2009 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Cooch Behar in connection with Sessions Case No.53 of 2004 arising out of Sessions Trial No.1(5)2008, convicting the appellant under Sections 412/395/397 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-B)/35 of the Arms Act and sentencing to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- in default further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to further imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act. 2 2. The prosecution traces its origin to a written complaint lodged by Tapan Kumar Saha, who narrated that, at about 1:30 a.m. on 27 July 2001, a band of armed intruders entered his residence with a common design to commit dacoity. Carrying torches, the assailants compelled the complainant to surrender the keys of the almirah. He perceived that four persons had entered the room, three bearing pistols while the fourth carried a vojali. They forced him from his bed, restrained his hands, and inflicted blows with the butt of a pistol upon different parts of his body. The intruders thereafter forced open the almirah with the vojali and removed gold and silver ornaments, cash amounting to approximately ₹50,000, together with several valuable household articles. The looted property was collected in a bag bearing the inscription "Slogen", measuring about twenty inches in length, after which the offenders departed from the premises. Following their departure, the complainant raised an alarm and set the criminal law in motion by lodging the complaint. 3. On the basis of a written complaint, the Kuchlibari Police Station Case No.29 dated 28.07.2001 under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code was initiated for investigation. 4. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted a charge-sheet under Sections 395/397/412 of the Indian Penal Code & Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act against the appellant. 5. Charge was framed against the appellant under Sections 412/395/397 of the Indian Penal Code & Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited certain documents. 7. The Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant assailed the judgment of conviction by contending that both the appreciation of evidence and the application of law by the Trial Court suffer from serious infirmities. It was argued that the prosecution evidence, when examined in its proper perspective, fails to satisfy the statutory ingredients of the offences for which the appellant has been convicted. 8. Drawing attention to the testimony of PW-1, the de facto complainant, Learned Counsel submitted that there was no electricity at the time of the occurrence and, for that reason, the assailants could not be identified. PW-1 himself stated that only four persons had entered the premises. This admission, according to the defence, assumes decisive significance since Section 391 of the Indian Penal Code defines dacoity as an offence requiring the participation of five or more persons. Once the prosecution version itself restricts the number of offenders to four, the foundational requirement of dacoity ceases to exist. Consequently, the conviction under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code, which contemplates dishonest receipt or retention of property stolen in the commission of dacoity, loses its legal foundation. 9. Reference was also made to the evidence of PW-6, a neighbour and a seizure witness. Learned Counsel submitted that PW-6 merely heard about the incident from others and admitted that her signature upon the seizure documents had been obtained at the police station. Such evidence, it was 4 urged, deprives the seizure proceedings of their evidentiary value and casts a substantial shadow upon the fairness of the investigation. 10. The testimony of PW-7, the wife of the de facto complainant, was pressed into service to reinforce the same proposition. She too stated that four persons had entered the house. Her evidence, according to the appellant, furnishes further support to the defence contention that the occurrence, even if accepted at its highest, could not legally assume the character of dacoity, thereby excluding the application of Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. The Learned Counsel further relied upon the depositions of PW-8 and PW-9, submitting that neither witness possessed prior acquaintance with the complainant or the accused. During cross-examination both witnesses disclosed that they had been taken before the Magistrate by the police and had made statements in the manner directed by the investigating agency. Such admissions, it was argued, considerably diminish the evidentiary worth of their testimony. 12. The evidence of PW-10, the son of the de facto complainant, was also highlighted. He stated that owing to the absence of electricity he could not recognise the offenders. Read conjointly with the testimony of PW-1 and PW- 7, Learned Counsel submitted that every eyewitness consistently admitted inability to identify the culprits. In such circumstances, the appellant's alleged participation rests upon a fragile evidentiary foundation and falls short of the standard required for sustaining a conviction. 5 13. The Learned Counsel thereafter adverted to the evidence of PW-13, the Investigating Officer, who deposed regarding the alleged recovery of cash, ornaments and a bhojali from the residence of the appellant in the presence of PW-6. This version, according to the defence, stands in marked contrast with the evidence of PW-6, who stated that she had merely been called to the police station and that her signature had been obtained there. Such inconsistency, it was submitted, strikes at the credibility of the recovery proceedings and reflects adversely upon the fairness and reliability of the investigation. 14. The conviction under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code was further challenged on the ground that the appellant had already been acquitted of the substantive charges under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Counsel contended that the very language of Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code predicates receipt or retention of property stolen in the commission of dacoity. Where the charge of dacoity itself fails, the conviction under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code cannot survive in law. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of this Court in Ramabatar Rajbar @ Ramawatar Nimtar Rajwar v. State of West Bengal (CRA 21 of 1991, decided on 18 May 2022), as also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Venkateshwar Rao alias Venkatal alias I. Rao v. State represented by Inspector of Police, A.P., wherein the same legal principle has been affirmed. 15. Addressing the alleged recovery, Learned Counsel argued that the prosecution failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements governing admissibility under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The precise 6 information said to have been furnished by the accused while in custody, which allegedly led to the discovery of the articles, had neither been properly recorded nor proved through admissible evidence. In the absence of such proof, the alleged discovery could not furnish a lawful basis for conviction. Reliance was placed upon the recent pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Boby v. State of Kerala, (2023) 15 SCC 760, reiterating the necessity of proving the exact information leading to discovery before the evidence may receive legal recognition. 16. The Learned Counsel also relied upon the decisions reported in State of Punjab v. Gurnam Singh, AIR 1984 SC 1799 : 1984 Supp SCC 502, together with the authorities referred to in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2025, to contend that recovery memoranda prepared or signed at the police station lose evidentiary sanctity and that a conviction founded principally upon such doubtful recovery cannot be sustained. It was submitted that the alleged recovery in the present case derives support only from official witnesses, while the independent seizure witness has materially departed from the prosecution version. 17. On the cumulative assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, Learned Counsel submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish either the identity of the appellant or the legality of the alleged recovery. The evidence placed on record, viewed as a whole, generates substantial doubt regarding the prosecution case. The judgment of conviction, according to the appellant, proceeds upon an erroneous appreciation of the evidence and a mistaken application of the governing legal principles. It was, therefore, 7 prayed that the conviction and sentence be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the charges. 18. The Learned Advocate representing the State supported the judgment of conviction and contended that the Learned Trial Court had undertaken a proper appreciation of the evidence and had rightly distinguished between the charges that remained beyond proof and those that stood established through reliable material on record. 19. It was submitted that two accused persons, namely Santosh Debnath, the present appellant, and Ekramul Haque, faced trial on charges under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25(1- B)/35 of the Arms Act, while an additional charge under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the present appellant. Since none of the eyewitnesses could identify the perpetrators of the dacoity, both accused persons secured an acquittal from the charges under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. Ekramul Haque was also acquitted of the remaining charges. The present appellant, however, stood on a different footing, as valuable ornaments, cash and firearms were recovered at his instance, furnishing an independent foundation for his conviction under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act. 20. The Learned Counsel submitted that PW-1, the de facto complainant, furnished a vivid account of the manner in which the dacoity was committed. His testimony received material support from PW-7 and PW-10, the wife and son of the complainant, regarding the occurrence itself. Although these witnesses candidly acknowledged their inability to recognise 8 the offenders owing to the absence of electricity, such circumstance, according to the State, merely explained the acquittal on the substantive charge of dacoity and did not diminish the evidentiary worth of the subsequent recoveries effected at the instance of the appellant. 21. It was argued that, once the appellant had already been acquitted of the charges under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, the principal question requiring adjudication in the appeal was confined to the legality and credibility of the recoveries which formed the basis of his conviction under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act. 22. Inviting attention to the evidence of PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5, Learned Counsel submitted that each of them admitted their respective signatures upon the seizure lists. Their testimony, particularly with regard to the seizure documents, remained intact since the defence elected not to subject them to cross-examination. Such evidence, therefore, acquired considerable evidentiary value. 23. The Learned Advocate for the State further relied upon the testimony of PW- 6, who acted as a seizure witness in respect of the recovery of cash and gold ornaments from the residence of the appellant. Although declared hostile, PW-6 admitted her signature upon the seizure list marked as Exhibit-4. The said document also bears the signature of the appellant. According to the State, this circumstance clearly establishes the presence of both the appellant and the witness at the place where the seizure was effected, thereby lending authenticity to the recovery proceedings. 9 24. The Learned Counsel also referred to the statements of PW-8 and PW-9 recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Learned Magistrate. Both witnesses stated that, on the day following the occurrence, they entered the appellant's residence and found him in possession of cash and ornaments. Upon being questioned, the appellant allegedly concealed those articles and instructed them not to disclose the matter. Although these witnesses later departed from their earlier version during trial and were declared hostile, the statements recorded before the Magistrate, according to the State, retain persuasive value while appreciating the entire body of evidence. Their subsequent departure from the earlier narrative, it was submitted, appears to have resulted from external influence rather than any infirmity in the prosecution case. 25. The Learned Counsel thereafter placed reliance upon the evidence of PW-13, the Investigating Officer, who deposed that, following the arrest of the appellant, statements recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act were marked as Exhibits 10 and 11. Acting upon the information furnished by the appellant, the investigating agency recovered cash amounting to Rs.49,200/-, a pair of gold earrings and a silver chain from his residence under Exhibit-5. On the basis of a further disclosure, a nylon bag containing three firearms and six rounds of ammunition was recovered from the bank of a pond at the appellant's instance. These recoveries, according to the prosecution, constitute compelling incriminating circumstances directly connecting the appellant with the stolen property and the seized arms. 10 26. It was further submitted that the recovered articles were placed in a Test Identification Parade and were identified by PW-1, PW-6 and PW-10. The seized firearms were also forwarded for ballistic examination, culminating in the expert report marked as Exhibit-12. Learned Counsel contended that these circumstances furnish substantial corroboration to the prosecution case. 27. Addressing the criticism directed against the seizure proceedings, Learned Counsel argued that PW-13 was confronted during cross-examination with the statement of PW-6 recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even after such confrontation, the investigating officer consistently maintained that the stolen articles, firearms and ammunition had been recovered at the instance of the appellant. The prosecution evidence, therefore, according to the State, remained coherent on every material aspect concerning the recovery. 28. In conclusion, Learned Advocate for the State submitted that the prosecution was required to establish only the factum of recovery at the instance of the appellant, a burden which stood satisfactorily discharged through the evidence of PW-6, PW-13, the disclosure statements exhibited as Exhibits 10 and 11, the seizure lists, and the statements of PW-8 and PW-9 recorded before the Magistrate. The conviction under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act, therefore, rests upon a firm evidentiary foundation and calls for no interference. It was lastly submitted that, although the prolonged pendency of the appeal may be regarded as a 11 relevant circumstance while considering the quantum of sentence, the finding of guilt merits affirmation. 29. PW-1, Tapan Kumar Saha, the de facto complainant, stated that he was a resident of Kuchlibari under Kuchlibari Police Station. During the night intervening 27 July 2001, at about 1.00 to 1.30 a.m., while he, his wife and his son Titan Saha were asleep, rain was pouring outside and there was no electricity in the house. Four persons forcibly entered his bedroom after ramming down the entrance door. The intruders compelled him to rise from bed, demanded the key of the almirah, assaulted him and, after unlocking the almirah with the key, removed gold and silver ornaments belonging to his wife together with cash amounting to Rs.50,000/-. Thereafter, the offenders departed from the premises. 30. PW-1 further deposed that he lodged the written First Information Report, drafted by Ram Narayan Pandey according to his instructions and in his presence. The written complaint was proved as Exhibit-1, while his signature thereon was marked as Exhibit-1/1. Owing to the prevailing darkness and the absence of electricity, he could not recognise any of the offenders. During investigation, police recovered one gold ear-ring, one silver chain and certain cash, which were later restored to him by order of the Trial Court. The investigating agency also seized the almirah from which the ornaments and cash had been removed. The seizure list relating thereto bore his signature, marked as Exhibit-2/1, and the subsequent zimmnama placing the almirah in his custody was proved as Exhibit-3/1. 12 31. PW-2, a resident of Upen Chowki, Kuchlibari, testified that he knew PW-1 and had learnt of the dacoity committed at the latter's residence during the night several years earlier. His role was confined to witness the seizure proceedings. He identified his signature upon the seizure list, proved as Exhibit-4/1. 32. PW-3 also stated that he knew PW-1 and had knowledge of the occurrence of dacoity at his residence. His participation was similarly restricted to the seizure proceedings, and his signature on the seizure list was proved as Exhibit-5/1. 33. PW-4, another resident of Kuchlibari acquainted with PW-1, stated that he had no personal knowledge as to whether any occurrence had taken place at the complainant's residence. His evidence remained confined to prove his signature upon the seizure list, marked as Exhibit-4/2. 34. PW-5 deposed that he knew PW-1 and had heard of the dacoity committed at his residence some years earlier. He identified his signature upon the seizure list, which was proved as Exhibit-4/3. 35. PW-6 was declared hostile by the prosecution. Nevertheless, the prosecution relied upon portions of her evidence and her earlier statement. According to the investigating officer, PW-6 stated during investigation that she had been summoned by the police to the residence of Santosh Debnath, where cash and ornaments were recovered at the appellant's instance, following which she signed the seizure documents as a witness. She further stated that, on another occasion, she was again called by the police when a bag containing a bhojali and other articles was recovered from the bank of a pond at the 13 instance of the appellant. During trial, however, she did not support the prosecution in its entirety and was consequently declared hostile. 36. PW-7, Maya Saha, wife of the complainant, corroborated the occurrence of the dacoity. She stated while the family members were asleep, about four persons entered their house during the night, demanded the keys of the almirah from her husband, threatened him, removed ornaments and cash and thereafter fled. She candidly stated that the offenders could not be identified because of the prevailing darkness. 37. PW-8 was also declared hostile by the prosecution. 38. PW-9 stated that he did not know PW-1 or the appellant. He acknowledged that his statement had been recorded by the Learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and proved his signature upon the relevant document, marked as Exhibit-7/1 series. He stated that he did not remember the contents of the statement. During cross-examination he admitted that the police had taken him before the Learned Magistrate and that he asserted according to police instructions. 39. PW-10, Titan Saha, son of the complainant, corroborated the occurrence of dacoity in the family residence. He stated to have been present in the house during the occurrence but, owing to load-shedding and darkness, he could not recognise the offenders. He also stated that the police seized the almirah from the house under a seizure list bearing his signature, marked as Exhibit-2/2. 40. PW-12, Ram Narayan Pandey, stated that he drafted the written complaint according to the instructions of PW-1 and signed the document. His 14 signature was proved as Exhibit-1/2. During cross-examination he clarified that he possessed no personal knowledge regarding the occurrence itself. 41. PW-13, the Investigating Officer, deposed that on 28 July 2001, while serving as Officer-in-Charge of Kuchlibari Police Station, he received the written complaint of Tapan Kumar Saha and registered Kuchlibari Police Station Case No. 29 of 2001 under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. The endorsement upon the written complaint was proved as Exhibit-1/3, while the formal First Information Report was marked as Exhibit-8. 42. PW-13 stated that he visited the place of occurrence, prepared a sketch map with index, proved as Exhibit-9, examined available witnesses and forwarded two witnesses before the Magistrate for recording their statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He seized the almirah from the complainant's residence under Exhibit-2 and subsequently entrusted the same to the complainant upon execution of the zimmnama, proved as Exhibit-3. 43. According to PW-13, after arresting the appellant he recorded a disclosure statement wherein the appellant stated that cash, two ear-rings and one silver chain were lying in his residence and could be recovered if taken there. The relevant admissible portion of that statement was marked as Exhibit-10. Acting upon the disclosure, he recovered Rs.49,200/-, one pair of gold ear- rings and one silver chain from the appellant's residence and seized those articles under Exhibit-5, the appellant having signed the seizure list, his signature being proved as Exhibit-5/3. 15 44. PW-13 further deposed that, upon a subsequent disclosure statement, marked as Exhibit-11, he recovered one nylon bag containing three firearms and six rounds of ammunition from the bank of a pond at the appellant's instance. The seizure list relating to that recovery was proved as Exhibit-4, while the appellant's signature thereon was marked as Exhibit-4/4. 45. He further stated that the recovered ornaments were subjected to a Test Identification Parade in which the complainant, his wife Maya Saha and his son Titan Saha identified them as the articles stolen during the occurrence. The seized firearms were forwarded for ballistic examination and the expert report was proved as Exhibit-12. 46. PW-13 also stated that, after his transfer, he handed over the case diary to Sub-Inspector L.K. Rana, who later submitted the charge-sheet against Santosh Debnath, Ekramul Haque, Anil Mohanta, Abdul Latif and Rafiqul Islam under Sections 395, 397 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code together with the relevant provisions of the Arms Act. He also referred to the statement of PW-6 recorded during investigation, wherein she narrated the recoveries effected at the appellant's instance. 47. During cross-examination, PW-13 admitted that he had not personally traced the seized articles before the recovery and further admitted that he had not obtained the appellant's signature upon the disclosure statement itself. 48. PW-14, the Learned Judicial Magistrate, deposed that on 8 August 2001 he recorded the proceedings relating to the proposed confessional statement of the appellant. The appellant declined to confess anything. The record 16 prepared by him was proved as Exhibit-13, and he also obtained the appellant's signature thereon. 49. PW-14 further stated that, while functioning as Judicial Magistrate on 12 and 13 November 2001, he recorded the statements of Habibul Hoque and Md. Idris under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Those statements were proved respectively as Exhibit-7 and Exhibit-6. During cross-examination he stated that he had not appended any signature below the recorded statements of the witnesses. 50. Thus, the prosecution evidence rests upon three principal pillars: the testimony of the victim and his family regarding the occurrence of the nocturnal dacoity; the documentary evidence relating to the First Information Report, seizures, disclosure statements and Test Identification Parade of the recovered property; and the evidence of the investigating officer concerning the recoveries allegedly effected at the instance of the appellant, supported, in part, by seizure witnesses and the Judicial Magistrate who recorded the statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The eyewitnesses consistently narrated the occurrence of the dacoity, though each acknowledged inability to identify the offenders owing to darkness, whereas the prosecution sought to connect the appellant with the offence principally through the evidence concerning the recovery of the stolen property and firearms. 51. The central issue that falls for determination is not whether the appellant participated in the commission of the dacoity, but whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing, beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant 17 dishonestly retained property proved to have been stolen in the course of that dacoity with the requisite knowledge contemplated under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code. 52. The distinction assumes considerable significance, for Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code creates a substantive and independent offence. The provision does not require the prosecution to establish that the receiver himself participated in the commission of the dacoity. The gravamen of the offence lies in conscious and dishonest receipt or retention of property known, or believed on reasonable grounds, to have originated from the commission of dacoity. 53. PW-1, the de facto complainant, furnished a detailed account of the incident. He narrated that during the intervening night of 27th and 28th July, 2001, while he, his wife and son were asleep, armed miscreants forcibly entered his residence after flinging open the entrance door. They demanded the keys of the almirah, assaulted him, removed gold and silver ornaments together with cash amounting to approximately Rs.50,000/- and thereafter departed. His evidence remained steadfast throughout cross-examination regarding the manner of occurrence. PW-7, his wife, and PW-10, his son, corroborated the material features of the incident in substantial measure. Their testimony established that valuable ornaments and cash were forcibly removed from the complainant's residence during a violent nocturnal intrusion. 54. Pertinently PW-1, PW-7 and PW-10 stated that owing to darkness and absence of electricity they were incapable of recognising the offenders. The Trial Court, duly considering to this circumstance recognizing the 18 significance thereof has recorded an order of acquittal in respect of the substantive offences under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code which has attained finality. 55. The acquittal under sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code however, neither diminishes the evidentiary worth of the occurrence itself nor alters the character of the property removed from the complainant's residence. The evidence consistently established that the ornaments and cash were removed by armed offenders during the course of a violent house invasion. The prosecution was therefore required to establish, by independent evidence, that the appellant subsequently retained those articles with the knowledge contemplated by Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code. 56. The subsequent chain of circumstances assumes decisive importance. 57. PW-13, the Investigating Officer, deposed following the arrest of the appellant, disclosure statements were recorded. Acting upon the information supplied by the appellant, police recovered cash amounting to Rs.49,200/-, one pair of gold ear-rings and one silver chain from the appellant's residence under a duly prepared seizure list marked as Exhibit-5. During further interrogation, another disclosure resulted in recovery of three firearms and six rounds of live ammunition concealed inside a nylon bag near the bank of a pond. The relevant seizure was proved by Exhibit-4. 58. The appellant appended his signatures upon the seizure lists. Those signatures have neither been denied nor explained during the course of trial. 59. The recovered ornaments were thereafter placed in Test Identification Parade. PW-1, PW-7 and PW-10 identified the recovered articles as those 19 removed from their residence during the occurrence. Such identification assumes considerable evidentiary significance since the articles remained capable of specific identification by its owners. Their evidence has remained consistent regarding the ownership of those articles. 60. The documentary evidence also lends substantial assurance to the prosecution case. The written complaint, formal First Information Report, seizure lists, disclosure memoranda, sketch map, zimmnama, Test Identification proceedings and ballistic examination report form an interlocking body of documentary evidence which materially corroborates the oral testimony. 61. The criticism directed towards PW-6, PW-8 and PW-9 also deserves examination. 62. PW-6, though declared hostile, admitted her signature upon the seizure list. It is well settled that the testimony of a hostile witness does not become wholly effaced from the record. The Court remains competent to rely upon such portions of the evidence which receive assurance from independent circumstances. Her admission regarding the seizure documents receives ample corroboration from PW-13 and the contemporaneous documentary exhibits. 63. PW-8 and PW-9 departed from their earlier statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their reluctance to adhere to their earlier version during trial cannot obliterate the remainder of the prosecution evidence, particularly where recoveries receive support from several independent circumstances. The law does not insist that every 20 witness must narrate an identical account before a conviction may lawfully follow. The Court is required to separate reliable evidence from that which fails to inspire confidence and thereafter assess the cumulative evidentiary value. 64. The principal submission advanced by the Learned Advocate for the appellant rests upon the proposition that the prosecution witnesses consistently referred to four offenders and, therefore, the occurrence could not legally amount to dacoity within the meaning of Section 391 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, it was argued that Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code automatically loses its foundation. 65. Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code employs the expression "property stolen in the commission of a dacoity." The provision primarily concerns the character of the property retained by the accused and his knowledge regarding its origin. The prosecution is therefore required to establish that the property retained by the accused originated from an occurrence possessing the legal attributes of dacoity. 66. The evidence of PW-1 merely establishes that four persons entered his bedroom. During a sudden nocturnal assault accompanied by darkness, rainfall and physical violence, the victims cannot reasonably be expected to furnish an exact account regarding every participant stationed at different locations surrounding the house. The evidence does not establish that only four persons participated in the entire criminal enterprise. It merely describes those who physically entered the sleeping chamber. 21 67. Section 391 of the Indian Penal Code contemplates conjoint commission by five or more persons. Participation need not invariably involve physical entry into the room where the property was removed. Persons guarding the premises, facilitating escape, keeping surveillance or providing armed assistance equally constitute participants if acting in concert. Consequently, the evidence does not conclusively exclude the participation of additional offenders. 68. More importantly, the appellant does not stand convicted under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. His conviction rests exclusively upon Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court extended the benefit of doubt regarding his participation in the actual occurrence because identification of the offenders remained elusive. Such circumstance does not eclipse the independent evidence proving his subsequent possession of the stolen articles. 69. The essential ingredients constituting an offence under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code may now be examined. 70. The first ingredient requires proof that the property was stolen during the commission of dacoity. The evidence of PW-1, PW-7 and PW-10 establishes that ornaments and cash were forcibly removed by armed offenders during the night. Their testimony regarding the occurrence remains substantially consistent. 71. The second ingredient requires proof that the accused received or retained the property. Recovery of the ornaments and substantial cash from the 22 appellant's residence pursuant to his own disclosure entirely satisfies this statutory requirement. 72. The third ingredient concerns dishonest retention. The appellant furnished no explanation regarding lawful possession of ornaments positively identified by their owners. Possession of recently stolen property, accompanied by complete silence regarding its lawful acquisition, furnishes a compelling circumstance indicating dishonest retention. 73. The fourth ingredient concerns knowledge or reason to believe that the property had been transferred by commission of dacoity. Such knowledge seldom admits direct proof. Like every other mental element, it is ordinarily inferred from surrounding circumstances. Recovery of substantial cash together with ornaments immediately following a violent nocturnal occurrence, the appellant's disclosure leading to recovery, concealment of firearms at another location, and complete absence of any lawful explanation collectively furnish a compelling basis for drawing that inference of earlier knowledge. 74. The authorities cited on behalf of the appellant do not advance his case. 75. In K. Venkateshwar Rao, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the foundational facts connecting the recovered articles with property stolen in the commission of dacoity. The present prosecution stands upon materially different evidence. Here, the recovered ornaments were specifically identified by PW-1, PW-7 and PW-10 during the Test Identification Parade. Recovery also followed the appellant's disclosure and stands corroborated by documentary evidence. 23 76. The decision rendered by this Court in Ramabatar Rajbar @ Ramawatar Nimtar Rajwar likewise proceeded upon the peculiar evidentiary deficiencies noticed in that prosecution. A judicial precedent cannot be mechanically transplanted without examining the factual matrix upon which the legal principle was applied. The evidence presently available furnishes a substantially stronger evidentiary foundation. 77. The reliance placed upon Boby v. State of Kerala, (2023) 15 SCC 760, also does not persuade this Court to interfere. The Supreme Court reiterated that admissibility under Section 27 of the Evidence Act depends upon proof of the information leading distinctly to discovery. In the present case, the relevant portions of the disclosure statements have been exhibited through PW-13, the consequent recoveries actually followed those disclosures, and the seized articles were recovered from places indicated by the appellant himself. The evidentiary requirement contemplated under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act therefore stands substantially fulfilled. 78. Similarly, State of Punjab v. Gurnam Singh emphasises judicial caution where recovery rests upon doubtful evidence. The conviction presently under consideration does not rest exclusively upon the testimony of the Investigating Officer. It receives assurance from the seizure documents bearing the appellant's signatures, identification of the ornaments by their owners, the documentary exhibits, the evidence concerning the Test Identification Parade and the surrounding circumstances forming a coherent evidentiary chain. 24 79. The Court is equally unable to accept the submission that preparation of seizure documents in carbon process or the hostility displayed by certain witnesses necessarily destroys the evidentiary value of the recoveries. Criminal adjudication proceeds upon appreciation of the evidence as a whole. Minor procedural deficiencies, absent demonstrable prejudice or fabrication, cannot eclipse otherwise reliable evidence supported by several independent circumstances. 80. Upon a comprehensive evaluation of the oral testimony, documentary exhibits and the governing principles of criminal jurisprudence, this Court finds that the prosecution has established each constituent element of the offence punishable under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. The appreciation of evidence undertaken by the Learned Trial Judge reflects sound judicial reasoning and does not disclose any error either in law or on facts warranting appellate correction. 81. The conviction recorded under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act therefore calls for affirmation. 82. In view of the above discussion, the sentence is modified to the extent of incarceration undergone by the appellant. 83. The appeal, accordingly, fails and stands dismissed. 84. There is no order as to costs. 85. Trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment be sent down at once to the Learned Trial Court for necessary action. 25 86. Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all formalities. (Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)