LAW FOR ALL

The conclusions of the examination conducted in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Madhuban, Karnal, are reproduced below from Ex. PF: - “RESULT (1) The countrymade pistol marked W/1 (chambered for 12 bore cartridges) is a firearm as defined in Arms Act 54 of 1959. Its firing mechanism was not found in working order. (2) The countrymade pistol marked W/1 had been fired through. However, scientifically, the time of its last firing cannot be given. (3) The percussion cap of cartridge case marked C/1 on which firing pin marks appear due to firing was found missing. Moreover, the firing mechanism of pistol W/1 was not found in working order. Therefore, no opinion could be formed regarding the linkage of C/1 in respect of pistol W/1. (4) One wooden piece and two metallic strips contained in parcel No. III could form part of countrymade pistol contained in parcel No. VIII. ……………………………………” (Emphasis supplied) In view of the conclusions given by Forensic Science Laboratory on points (1), (2) and (3), quoted above, we are of the view that the prosecution story, as narrated by PW-4 Pappu and PW-5 Surender Singh, is highly doubtful. Apart from this, though the motive of crime is not necessarily required to be proved, but in the case like the present one where the appellants are named on suspicion by informant PW-6 Amit Kumar in the First Information Report (which does not contain names of PW-4 Pappu and PW-5 Surender Singh as witnesses who had seen the occurrence), the motive appears to be relevant fact. PW-6 Amit Kumar has simply mentioned that the deceased had asked the two accused to waive of the remaining amount of ?250/- from the loan of ?10,000/- taken by Gola but the same does not appear to be a convincing motive to commit the crime by the appellants. Prosecution has not examined Gola if he had taken loan of ?10,000/- and paid off the same minus the amount ?250/-. Even otherwise, in the First Information Report it is nowhere mentioned why actually Deepak (deceased) had gone in his separate scooter with the two appellants from his house. For the reasons, as discussed above, we find that the trial court as well as the High Court has erred in law in holding that the charge against the two accused stood proved. In the light of appreciation of evidence, as above, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC against the two accused. We further hold that the charge of offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 against accused Ajit @ Dara Singh is also not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be allowed.