http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: NARSI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       12/11/1998

BENCH: G.T.NANAVATI, S.RAJENDRA BABU

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:  JUDGMENT Nanavati. J. The 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 condition. What  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

conviction of the appellant will have to be set aside. We,  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 against hem.