33. The Designated Court has rejected the evidence of both the witnesses on consideration of other aspect that PW- 55 had stated that no search of the flat was made by the police party. While appreciating the evidence, the court must keep in mind that the powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, other may not. An object or thing happened might reflect in the image of a person's mind, whereas it may go unnoticed on the part of another. It has not come out in the evidence or in the cross-examination that PW-55 was also a party to the search of the flat along with PW-50 after the arms were produced by the accused who had made a categorical statement that he had made a search of block no. 402 before the completion of the panchnama. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence, more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence, as a whole, and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witnesses and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matter not touching the core of matter in issue, hyper-technical approach by taking sentence out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.

34. On an overall reading of the statements made by PW-50 and PW-55, we do not find that the evidence of recovery of .38 revolver and the live cartridges from the accused Gurnamsingh was in any way shaken by some of the infirmities pointed out by the Designated Court. In fact, in our opinion, those discrepancies in the statements of PW-50 and PW-55 were not infirmities, but those statements are consistent with the general tenor of evidence.

35. When the accused Rizwan was arrested and made disclosure statement that he would point out the house of accused Gurnamsingh to whom he had handed over a revolver, it is natural for the police party to take accused Rizwan for seizure of the arms which, according to them, has a connection with the crime committed. When the prosecution has proved conscious and exclusive possession of block no. 402 by the accused Gurnamsingh, the statements of the witnesses cannot be brushed aside on the ground that the prosecution has not proved the title or ownership of the flat.

36. It is not necessary at all for the prosecution to prove the ownership of block no. 402, Girnar Building from where the firearm and the live cartridges were recovered. It is sufficient for the prosecution to prove that the accused Gurnamsingh and his close relations were occupants of block no. 402 so as to exclude the possibility of other persons concealing and keeping firearms in the premises of the flat. According to us, the prosecution has proved the seizure of the revolver and the live cartridges from the accused Gurnamsingh.

37. Under Section 5 of the TADA Act, any person found in possession of any arms and ammunition specified in Columns 2 and 3 of Category I or Category III(a) of Schedule I to the Arms Rules, 1962 in the notified area, then notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, would be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. As per the Arms Rules, 1962, Schedule I Category III(a), "revolver and pistols" are prohibited arms in the notified area. It is not in dispute that Mumbai is a notified area. The accused Gurnamsingh having been found in possession of .38 revolver, is guilty of offence under Section 5 of the TA