that Public Witness 1 took Ex. P. 9 without. Ex. P. 10. The question whether Public Witness 1 borrowed Ex. P. 9 along withex. P. IO and returned it along with Ex. P. IO has a bearing on theappreciation of the testimony of Public Witness 1; that there is mention ofex. P. 10 having been seized along with Ex. P. 9 and Public Witness 67 claimedex. P. 10 as his own does lend support to Public Witness l's version-thoughthe version given by Public Witness 67, in this aspect, is different. Public Witness 34 sworerhat Ex. P. 10 belonged to him. It does not admit of any doubt whateverthat at the time of the seizure Ex. P. 9 was inside Ex. P. 10; this hasbeen recorded in the memo Ex. P. dated 12/12/1973. Itis not likely that Ex. P. 9 was taken without Ex. P. 10. Dhananjay Singh, (P. W. 81), an advocate practising at Bhopal has attested Ex. Public Witness 34/b ; he swore that the revolver was in a cover when Public Witness 67 broughtit along with 23 cartridges. Public Witness 81 lived only about a kilometer awayfrom Public Witness 34; he was a respectable witness of the locality. No significance can be attached to Public Witness l'a omission to tell the police aboutthe holster when it is menti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document