Summary – Appeal against concurrent murder conviction – Prosecution relied upon the recovery of the alleged weapon of offence at the instance of the appellant and the fact that the appellant disclosed the place where he had thrown the dead bodies – the recovery was allegedly made one month and four days after the occurrence – the recovery was made from open space in a garden -the place was easily accessible to many – Prosecution Witnesses did not state that the weapon and cartridges were buried underground and were recovered only after digging. Lastly, though independent witnesses were available, they were not made witnesses to the Panchnama made pursuant to the alleged statement made by the appellant – The evidence of recovery of the weapon at the instance of the appellant cannot be accepted as reliable – A serious doubt about the truthfulness of the prosecution case – The benefit of the doubt must be extended to the appellant – Acquitted.