49 Cri.Appeals 516, 281 n 468 of 2012.odt rt given by Accused Jawedkhan simcard was recovered from the C ou place stated by him. It was seized and it's Panchanama Exhibit 54­A was drawn in presence of Panchas. Article 21 simcard has been identified by P.I. Borse as the same. 53. True, Panch witnesses do not support the prosecution In our view that alone would not be ig h on recovery of simcard. enough to discard the testimonies of police officers whose H evidence is otherwise found to be trustworthy and believable. On the basis of their evidence we hold that prosecution has proved ba y this clinching circumstance against Accused Jawedkhan beyond doubt. 54. (III) (a) Recovery of gold ring of Complainant at B om the instance of Accused No.3. (b) Accused No.1 had given gold ring to Accused No.3. It can be seen from the evidence of PW­7 Aniket that gold ring gifted to him by his friend on his birthday was found missing from the house. PW­8 Damodhar Manik Ghuge was doing welding work in Sterlight company where Aniket was serving. Damodhar and Aniket were working in the same ::: Uploaded on - 08/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2016 19:36:29 :::