( 1 ) THE appellants in both the above mentioned appeals have been convicted of offences under section 307/34, Indian Penal Code as also under section 27 of the Arms Act by an Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi vide judgment dated 12th February, 1981. They have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years each on the first count and rigorous imprisonment for three years on the second count. Feeling aggrieved they have prefarred separate appeals against their conviction and sentence. Since common questions of law and fact are involved, this judgment will dispose of both the connected appeals.

( 2 ). The prosecution case succinctly is that on 21st March, 1980, S. I. Mehar Singh, Po ice Post (Railway), Shahdara, was on patrol alongwith Head Constable Rajpal Singh and Constable Baru Singh. At about 8. 10 A. M. they happened to be at platform No. 2, Railway Station. Shahdara when Janta Expresss came from Howrah side and halted at that platform. A person alighted form the train and imparted secret information to S. I. Mehar Singh that there were four persons in compartment No. 5683 who were having arms and ammunition for which they had no licence. That person pointed out towards those persons when they got down from the compartment. The police party moved towards those persons but at the sight of police they took to their heels. The police party chased them through the railway lines. After they had covered a distance of about 3/4 furlongs Narayan-appellant asked his companion Krishan Lal to fire at the police party as they were about to catch hold of him. Thereupon, Krishan Lal tired at the police party from a country-made pistol but in order to save themselves members of the police party lay down in a pit. Thereafter, they overpowered the appellant; S. I. Mehar Singh apprehended Krishan Lal while Head Constable Rajpal Singh and Constable Baru Ram apprehended Narayan, appellants. Their other two companions, however, managed to escape. Kishan Lal was holding revolver Ex. PI in his right hand at that time. The same had an empty cartridge Ex. P2 therein. Both these articles were seized and taken to possession by the police. Narayan was carrying a thaila which on search yielded revolver Ex. P3 and four live cartridges Ex. P4 to P7. After preparing sketches of the arms and ammunition recovered from the appellants, S. I. Mehar Singh sent two separate rukkas Ex. PW2/a and PW2/g for registration of cases, one under Section 307, Indian Penal Code and the other under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The arms and ammunitions recovered from the appellants were later on sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination and on receipt of their report Ex. PW5/d and completion of other formalities, both the appell- ants were challaned.

( 3 ) HEAD Constable Rajpal Singh, PW1. Constable Baru Singh, PW4 and S. I. Mehar Singh, PW5 are the only eye witnesses to the occurrence. All of them have deposed to the foregoing facts. I have gone through their depositions and I find that they are fairly consistent and uniform, their being virtually no discrepancy worth the name.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has, however, canvassed with some fervour that implicit faith should not be pinned in the testimony of police officials alone in the absence of any corroboration by any indepen- dent witness. It is urged that the incident took place in the close vicinity of a railway station and near the godown and, therefore, it was not at all difficult for the investigating officer to associate some members of the public to witness the recovery of incriminating arms and ammunition. However, the law is now well-settled that the evidence of police officials cannot be viewed with suspicion merely because they are interested in the success of their case and the same has to be appraised and evaluated having regard to all the circumstances of the case. In State of Kerala v. M. M. Mathewand another, A. I. R. 1978 SC 1571, the Supre