JUDGMENT 1. - At the joint request of the learned Counsel for the parties, the appeal has been heard finally at this stage, keeping in view the fact of shorter sentence under challenge. 2. Shri Biri Singh learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been convicted Under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to one year's R.I. with a fine of Rs. 500/- (in default, further 2 months' S.I.), merely on the basis of recovery of the gun from his possession, whereas, according to Shri Singh, it was the case of prosecution that at the relevant time, the gun in question was in possession of Bhagawat Prasad and the same was snatched by the appellant. 3. Admittedly the appellant was tries for the charges Under Section 397, Indian Penal Code & 3/25 of the Arms Act. But, on account of the incongruities found in the identification parade, the appellant has been acquitted Under Section 397, but he has been held guilty Under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. 4. Shri biri Singh vociferously contended that while the snatching of the gun in question has been held to be doubtful then the appellant could not have been convicted Under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. In this regard, he submitted that the recovery witnesses (PWS 9 & 10) before whom the gun in question has been recovered did not at all support the prosecution case and they have turned hostile. That apart, according to him, the trial Court, itself, has admitted in its judgment that number of the gun stated in the license and the number engraved on the gun in question both were different. Taking the aid of these circumstances, Shri Biri Singh urged that it cannot be said that the gun which was possessed by Bhagwat Prasad at the crucial time was the same, which was recovered from the possession of the appellant. 5. As stated earlier, the gun in question at the crucial time is said to have been in possession of Bhagwat Prasad and it was stated to be snatched by the appellant but, still Bhagwat Prasad failed to identify the gun during identification proceedings. 5. As stated earlier, the gun in question at the crucial time is said to have been in possession of Bhagwat Prasad and it was stated to be snatched by the appellant but, still Bhagwat Prasad failed to identify the gun during identification proceedings. It is thus clear that it is a case where the star witness of the prosecution Bhagwat Prasad has completely failed to identify the gun, itself and the recovery witnesses have turned hostile and that number engraved on the gun in question and stated in the license is different, then in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and that being so, the prosecution case becomes dubious and suspicious, and on the basis of such evidence on record, no conviction Under Section 3/25 Arms Act can be sustained on merits and the benefit of doubt must go in favour of the appellant who deserves to be acquitted. 6. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The impugned conviction & sentence passed against the appellant are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence Under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959. His sentence is stated to be suspended by the trial Court till tomorrow. He need not surrender.Appeal allowed. *******