NARSI vs STATE OF HARYANA

The Supreme Court held that the conviction of the appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 5 of the TADA Act was unsustainable due to the lack of independent witnesses during the seizure of the weapon. The Court found the testimony of the prosecution witness, Ganga Ram, to be improbable and untrustworthy, leading to reasonable doubt regarding the possession of the unlicensed pistol. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellant and set aside the conviction and sentence.