“ Para.9:- The evidence on record clearly shows that the pistol alleged to have been recovered from the polythene bag which was allegedly taken out from the mud by the appellant was not sealed on the spot. PW 1 in his crossexamination has stated that the pistol was not sealed as it was factory-made and in the recovery memo its "number" or "make" was not written as the same was not clear and legible. However, the cartridges and bomb and RDX were sealed. Similar statement has been given by PW 2 S.N. Tripathi and PW 4 S.P. Sharma that at the time when the pistol was deposited in the malkhana, the same had not been sealed. In the FIR, no details have been given to fix the identity of the pistol. PW 4 has stated that the same was of Chinese-make while PW 6 Tej Pal Sharma, Head Constable of PS Lisari Gate, where the recovered articles were deposited, has stated that the same was of Englishmake. In Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Sahib Singh v. State of Punjab it has been held that the possibility of tampering cannot be ruled out where the recovered articles were not sealed on the spot. We are little surprised that though the 7 cartridges were sealed but the most important object, namely, the pistol was not sealed on the spot and the same was deposited as it is in the police station and, thereafter at the malkhana. In our opinion the fact that the pistol alleged to have been recovered at the pointing out of the appellant was not sealed on the spot coupled with the fact that neither its number nor its make etc. to fix its identity was mentioned in the recovery memo or in the FIR, raises considerable doubt regarding the factum of recovery.”
