to Devi Lal, an independent witness, who did not support the case of the prosecution, and, as such, the trial Court, was wrong, in recording conviction of the accused. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. No doubt, to some extent, Devi Lal, independent witness, PW7, to whom, the room (kotha) belonged, did not support the case of the prosecution. He, however, supported the case of the prosecution in material particulars. He, in clear-cut terms stated, in his statement, that when he alongwith the Police officials, entered the room (kotha), Bansi, accused, was there, and, he was apprehended. On personal search of Bansi, accused, one country-made pistol and 22 live cartridges, in a belt, under the jacket, were recovered. He only did not support the case of the prosecution, with regard to the identity of Vinod, who was acquitted, by the trial Court. The presence of the accused with country-made pistol and 22 live cartridges, on the basis of the statement of Devi Lal, independent witness, was, thus, proved. Even, Satbir Singh, Sub Inspector, PW4, in his statement, stated that, he saw three persons, in the room (kotha), out of whom, one was removing the fodder from over the gunny bags and the other two were carrying a gunny bag out side. He further stated that, on seeing the Police party, the two persons, who were carrying a gunny bag, out of the room, succeeded in fleeing and the third one, who was removing fodder from over the gunny bags, was apprehended, at the spot, who disclosed his name as Bansi, accused (now appellant). Ram Kumar, Inspector, PW6, the Investigating Officer, and, Mann Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, PW5, also
