(75) S.C.No.463/2009 (Judgment) was purchased from the shop of RC Bafna and the Manager working with RC Bafna has also identified that ring to be sold from his shop. The evidence of Aniket also shows that said gold ring was stolen from his house and the said gold ring was recovered at the instance of accused Ram Bodkhe. So, it can be considered that from accused Jawed he had received that ring and therefore, without keeping it at his house, he had hidden it in the electric meter room of Tulsi chamber. 124/­ Advocate Shri Barlota, on behalf of accused has argued that said recovery is not proved beyond doubt since the panchas did not support the prosecution side. For that purpose, he has relied on the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Kuldip Singh v. State of Delhi, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court, 771” and also on the ratio laid down by Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of “ Rajkumar Vs. State, reported in 2005 Cri.L.J. 1322” ” and submitted that accused Ram Bodkhe be acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. 125/­ But regarding said recovery is concerned, again the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Gurujinder Singh v. State of Punjab”, “Mohd.Aslam v. State of Maharashtra”, and also the ratio laid down by Hon'ble