ASHWANI KUMAR RAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mohd. Shoeb Khan, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the accused -applicant by placing strong reliance upon the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. itself that there is a dispute with regard to the weapon used in the incident. It has been submitted at the bar that the pistol identified as 9 m.m. glock pistol no. HPZ 765 which was seized and numbered as 1/2013 belongs to the accused -applicant whereas the pistol which belongs to the deceased is 9 MM pistol which has been marked 2 of 2013. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the accused -applicant that as per the forensic expert report, the weapon which was in the name of the accused -applicant had not been fired for the last six months, a copy of the said report has been filed as annexure no. 2 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. It has also been submitted that as per the prosecution case, the shot was fired by the accused -applicant from his own pistol.

(3.) A supplementary affidavit has been filed in which a report of the arms expert has also been annexed. A perusal of which shows that the report says: -