State Of Maharashtra vs Arvinder

The Supreme Court upheld the designated court's decision, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to establish the possession of a firearm by the accused, as there was no panchnama or seizure of the weapon. The Court noted inconsistencies in witness testimonies, particularly regarding the identification of the revolver and the uniform status of the complainant, PW.2 Anil Kumar. The Court concluded that the designated court's findings were based on a proper appreciation of evidence, and thus, the appeal was dismissed under Article 136 of the Constitution.