RAEES Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case of firing upon the police personnel by the accused, in which no policeman sustained injury. An F.I.R. was lodged against the accused on 27.09.1997 in P.S. Ramnagar in respect of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, Section 25 Arms Act and Section 411 IPC. Three different case crime nos. were registered. After the investigation, two different charge sheets were submitted, one under Section 307 I.P.C. and another under Section 25 Arms Act. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial commenced and prosecution opened its case, charges under Section 307 IPC and 25 Arms Act were framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Since, offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and Section 25 Arms Act were connected with each other therefore, both the Sessions Trials were decided together, by a common judgment and order. By impugned judgment and order dated 05.09.2002, accused Raees was exonerated of the charge of offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. He was however, convicted under Section 25 Arms Act. He was directed to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 500/, in default of payment of which, he was required to undergo further imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order, present Criminal Appeal was preferred by the convict.

(2.) The principal contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act was wholly unsustainable, inasmuch as it was not permissible for the trial court to accept prosecution evidence as regards offence under Section 25 Arms Act and at the same time rejecting same evidence as regards offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. The trial court was not permitted to blow hot and cold at the same time. The trial court disbelieved that part of evidence whereby, allegedly, the accused fired upon the police personnel, and accepted the same evidence holding that a country made pistol alongwith two live cartridges were found from the possession of the accused.

(3.) Learned A.G.A., on the other hand submitted that the maxim of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India. Part of evidence may be accepted by the Court and remaining part of the same may be rejected.