Rattan Singh, who was posted as MHC at that time, has stated in his chief-examination that he handed over seven sample parcels along with sample seals to Constable Rajbir for depositing the same with FSL, Madhuban. There is no cross-examination regarding sample seals. The recovery witness PW-7 ASI Lakhmi Chand has also stated in chief-examination that sample seals were prepared and there is no cross-examination on this point. Similarly, PW-8 Randhir Singh, Investigating Officer also stated in chief-examination that the sample seals were prepared on a piece of cloth. There is nothing in the cross-examination that sample seals were not prepared. So, this argument of learned counsel for the appellants has no force. Similarly, the argument that CFSL form was not prepared on the spot, has also no force. There is nothing in the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer that CFSL form was not prepared on the spot. There is not even a suggestion that CFSL form was not prepared on the spot. Recovery has been effected at 2.00 A.M. at night. So, independent witnesses are not supposed to be there at that time. Otherwise also, it is settled law that testimony of police official is as good as of any other witness unless some enmity or motive is alleged and proved. In the present case, police officials have no enmity or motive against the appellants. Therefore, no reasonable doubt exists on this point. No material contradiction or improbability in the statements of the PWs has been pointed by learned counsel for the appellant. There is nothing in the cross-examination of the PWs, which may make their statements unreliable. PWs have consistently
