Recovery occurred long after the arrest of the accused. The bloodstains on the article had already disintegrated, making it impossible to determine whether they were human blood or not. The deceased himself was an accused in an earlier murder case and had enemies. No motive to commit the murder was attributed to the accused appellant.

The circumstances of the recovery were not conclusive enough to connect the accused with the crime.

The statement of the prosecution witness contradicted the recovery. However, upon examining the facts, the witness's statement was found unreliable. The witness claimed that the revolver was recovered from the vehicle on the day following the murder, but in reality, the revolver was found at a different location after 5 months.

Disregarding the witness's statement, it was held that there was no reason for the police to conceal the revolver for 5 months after its recovery from the vehicle on the next day of the murder. Relevant legal provisions include the Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 27), CrPC (Sections 165(3) & (4)), and the Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 302 and 364).