Vs. State of Haryana  INSC 536 (12 November 1998)
S.Rajendra Babu Nanavati. J.
appellant has been convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 5 of
the TADA Act by the Designated
Court, Bhiwani as he
was found in possession of a countrymade 315 bore pistol and a live cartidge.
The Designated Court relying upon the evidence of P.W.2
- Ganga Ram held that the allegation made against the appellant was proved and
he was infect found in possession of a pistol and a live cartidge. The Designated Court also relied upon the report of
Forensic Science Laboratory and held that the pistol was in a working
is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Designated Court failed to appreciate that the
evidence of Ganga Ram was so improbable that it did not deserve to be accepted.
As disclosed by the prosecution evidence, a space was registered against the
appellant and seven others for the offence of murder on November 1, 1988 at Fatehabad Police Station. The
police was on look out for the appellant. On 8th November, 1988, the appellant accompanied by his maternal uncle presented
himself before the Officer incharge of the Fatehabad Police Station. SHO Ganga
Ram took him in custody and at that time found from his possession, a pistol
and a cartidge. No independent witness was kept present at the time of either
taking the appellant into custody or while seizing the pistol and the cartidge.
The reason given by Ganga Ram in this behalf is the because his maternal uncle
was present he did not think it fit to call bay other person to witness the
seizure of the weapon and the cartidge. This obviously is a lame excuse. In
absence of any independent evidence, seizure of a pistol and a cartidge from
possession of the appellant becomes doubtful. It is also highly improbable the
appellant had presented himself with a weapon which was unlicensed. He had not
gone there to make a confession. He had gone to the police station because he
was wanted by the police in that case. No other witness was examined by the
prosecution on the point of recovery of a pistol and a cartidge from the
possession of the appellant. As the evidence of Ganga Ram does not appear to be
truthful, the conviction of the appellant will have to be set aside.
therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellant and
also the order of sentence passed against him and acquit him of the charges levelled