Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by Jasbir alias Bunti son of Dhir Singh. The appellant was tried in case FIR No. 219 dated 11.8.2000 registered at Police Station Rai, under Section 307 read with Section 34 and 25 of the Arms Act. 2. The learned trial court acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC, however, held him guilty of offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo RI for two years as he was stated to be found in possession of contraband fire arm. The appellant was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of six months. The appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 30.3.2002 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sonepat. 3. Injured Anand PW-7 had made a statement Ex.PF on 11.8.2000 to ASI Om Parkash PW-5 in Genral Hospital, Sonepat stating that he is running a retail shop in Village Sewali; at about 8 p.m. on 04.8.2000, he was sitting along with his brother Chand and Rajesh, the accused Jasbir along with Vijender came there under the influence of liquor. At that time, Jasbir was armed with a country made pistol. Vijender incited accused Jasbir to shoot at the complainant to teach him a lesson. Thereafter, accused Jasbir fired a shot which hit injured Anand in his abdomen near the navel. On the above stated statement, ASI Om Parkash had made an endorsement Ex.PF/1 and formal FIR Ex.PF/2 was registered. The FIR was investigated and a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted and the appellant was charged for offence under Section 307 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act. 4. Anand appeared in the court as PW-7 and did not support the prosecution case. He was declared hostile and was confronted with the previous statement. Another eye witness, namely Chand and Prem appeared as PW-8 and PW-9, but they also did not support the prosecution and they were also declared hostile. Constable Krishan and MHC Ramesh Chander PW-1 and PW-2 had tendered their affidavits to prove the link evidence. Constable Inderpal PW-4 had prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PD. Another eye witness, namely Chand and Prem appeared as PW-8 and PW-9, but they also did not support the prosecution and they were also declared hostile. Constable Krishan and MHC Ramesh Chander PW-1 and PW-2 had tendered their affidavits to prove the link evidence. Constable Inderpal PW-4 had prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PD. ASI Om Parkash PW-5 had recorded the statement of injured Anand Ex.PF on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PF/2 was registered. Dr. V.K. Gupta PW-6 had medico-legally examined injured Anand. Silk Ram, Reader to District Magistrate, Sonepat PW-10 had proved the sanction order wherein sanction was granted to the prosecution to prosecute the appellant for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Dr. Sombir Singh, PW-12 conducted operation of the injured. Dr. Sushil Gupta, PW-13 had conducted radiological examination of injured Anand. HC Raghbir Singh PW-14 is the attesting witness to the disclosure statement made by appellant Jasbir. It was stated by HC Raghbir Singh that on 11.8.2001 he was present along with ASI Om Parkash; at that time, the appellant told them that the pistol with which he fired at injured Anand can be got recovered. Thereafter, the pistol was got recovered from the box lying on the slab in the house of the accused. Pistol was exhibited as P1. ASI Om Parkash PW-5 had stated that the appellant was arrested on 19.8.2000. He had made a disclosure statement Ex.P8 in pursuance whereof the pistol was got recovered by the accused. 5. Shri Rahul Vats, Counsel for the appellant, has stated that the injured was declared hostile and they have stated that no injury was caused by the appellant. The only evidence against the appellant is that he had made disclosure statement Ex.PH to the Investigating Officer, ASI Om Parkash PW-5 in pursuance whereof the pistol was recovered. Counsel states that the disclosure statement Ex.PH was prepared by ASI Om Parkash and attested by HC Raghbir Singh PW-14 and Prem PW-9. Counsel states that Prem PW-9 has not supported the case of the prosecution. It is stated that the Court has to rely only upon the testimony of official witnesses, namely, HC Raghbir Singh and ASI Om Parkash and no independent witness has been examined. Counsel states that Prem PW-9 has not supported the case of the prosecution. It is stated that the Court has to rely only upon the testimony of official witnesses, namely, HC Raghbir Singh and ASI Om Parkash and no independent witness has been examined. Counsel has drawn my attention to the cross examination of HC Raghbir Singh wherein it is stated that the accused was interrogated by ASI Om Parkash at a crossing which is a busy place and the recovery was effected from the house of the accused which was open and other family members were present there. It is stated that the conscious possession of the appellant has not been proved by the prosecution. 6. I find merit in the contention raised by Counsel for the appellant. In the present case, the injured and the other witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. The appellant has not been convicted of the offence under Section 307 IPC. A perusal of the testimony of HC Raghbir Singh reveals that he was present along with ASI Om Parkash when accused told that the pistol with which he fired can be got recovered and thereafter the pistol was taken out by him from the box lying on the shelf in his house. ASI Om Parkash has stated that the statement of the accused was reduced into writing and thereafter recovery was effected. Even though HC Raghbir Singh proved his signatures on disclosure statement Ex.PH, he has not stated that the recovery was effected in pursuance of the disclosure statement recorded by ASI Om Parkash. Since Prem PW-9 has not supported the prosecution case, it is not safe to rely upon the official witnesses alone. Hence, the benefit of doubt can be extended to the appellant. Thus, the appeal is accepted and the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence recorded against the appellant is set aside.