JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant - Hans Raj was found guilty under Section 25 of the Arms Act read with Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo further imprisonment for six months. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned designated judge convicted the appellant on the sole evidence of the police witnesses, who are all interested witnesses, and there is ample material to show that there was hostility between the appellant and the police in view of the fact that the appellant's brother one Sajjan Kumar, a correspondent of 'Peeng' Newspaper has been writing certain news items in the said newspaper against the Superintendent of Police Mr. Dabwal. 3. According to the prosecution on 14th March, 1991 at about 12.30 noon PW-3, the Inspector was present near a railway crossing along with PW-2, another police official. Ravinder and Pahlad, non-officials were also present there. They saw the accused coming from the side of city Bhiwani and seeing the police there, he tried to go back. On suspicion, the accused was apprehended and searched. On search they found one foreign made revolver Ex. P-I along with three cartridges Ex. P-2 to P-4 from his left pocket of the pant. They were recovered under a Panchnama and seized articles were sent to the experts. After completion of the investigation the charge sheet was laid. In support of the prosecution PWs 1-3, the Head Constable and Inspector were examined. The accused when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, denied the offence and stated that he was falsely implicated in this case by the police due to enmity. In support of his evidence he produced three documents Ex. D-1 to D-3. Ex. D-1 is a copy of the order dated 15th April, 1991 filed in the writ petition; Ex.D-2 is a copy of the writ petition in which the above order was passed and Ex. D-3 is a copy of the report dated 13th April, 1991 made by the Warrant Officer appointed in this writ petition. 4. D-1 to D-3. Ex. D-1 is a copy of the order dated 15th April, 1991 filed in the writ petition; Ex.D-2 is a copy of the writ petition in which the above order was passed and Ex. D-3 is a copy of the report dated 13th April, 1991 made by the Warrant Officer appointed in this writ petition. 4. The designated court noted that two independent witnesses were parties to the said occurrence and they have not supported the prosecution so it should be held that the case is doubtful and it has gone further to observe that "Normally, this argument would have been accepted in case weapon recovered was an ordinary one, but in the present case weapon recovered is a foreign made revolver price of which is certainly about Rs. 15,000/-. Such a weapon police is not likely to plant from its own side unless some enmity between the police or the accused is there." Having made this observation, the designated court proceeded to consider the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 and questions put to them in the cross examination and ultimately held that the statements of both the police officers do no differ any point and their evidence can be relied upon and accordingly convicted the appellant. 5. In a case of this nature, the two independent witnesses could have been examined instead of telling the court that they have been won over and since they have not been examined, this creates doubts. The observation made by the designated court, namely that the revolver is costly one and police is not likely to plant such a weapon, is not cogent and convincing. Regarding the enmity between the appellant and his brother on one side and the police on the other, Ex. D-1 to D-3 have been relied upon. A perusal of the same would show that there was a case registered against the appellant which was earlier to the present occurrence. The suggestion would also go j to show that all was not well between the appellant and the police and that would indicate some hostility particularly when the suggestion is examined in the light of Ex. D-1 to D-3 and also in the light of the fact that he brother of the accused had been publishing some news items against the police as is shown from the writ petition which is on record. D-1 to D-3 and also in the light of the fact that he brother of the accused had been publishing some news items against the police as is shown from the writ petition which is on record. We do not intend to lay down that 'i the evidence of the police witnesses should not be acted upon but in the facts and circumstances of this case a particularly when the appellant has placed enough material in support of his plea, it would have been better for the prosecution to have examined the other two witnesses also instead of telling the court that they have been won over. Therefore, a reasonable doubt arises about the guilt of the appellant and the same should go to his benefit. 6. In the result of conviction and sentence awarded by the designated court are set aside, the appeal is allowed and the appellant shall be set at liberty.