PUTTAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. S. N. Tripathi, J. Accused Pirthi, Phool Singh, Puttan and Bal Kishan have been convicted on a charge under Section 25, Arms Act and sentenced to undergo 6 months' R. I. vide judgment and order dated 6-10-1979 passed by the then Vth Addl. Sessions Judge, Moradabad in S. I. No. 664 of 1978, State v. Jai Singh and 1 others, under Sections 399, 402,i. P. C. read with Section 25, Arms Act.

(2.) IT is alleged that on receipt of information on 14-11-1977 at about 7. 30 p. m. the police party proceeded towards the place of occurrence, where it is alleged that the dacoits were likely to assemble, after having made prepara tion to commit dacoity. The police party consisting of the policemen as well as public persons divided themselves into three parties and they took their respective positions. After a short-while, the-alleged dacoits started assembl ing and talking amongst them. After hearing their conversation, the Station Officer was satisfied that it was a gang of armed dacoits that had assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity after having made requisite preparation for the same. He threw a challenge to the dacoits. They tried to run away. However, they were overpowered and arrested. One gun (Exhibit 4) and live cartridges (Exhibit 7) were recovered from Pirthi, Tamancha (Exhibit 5) and five live cartridges respectively (Exhibits 7/1 to 7/5) were recovered from accused Phool Singh. From Puttan Tamancha (Exhibit 8) and four live cartridges were recovered (Exhibit 9/1 to 9/4 ). From Bal Kishan, one Tamancha (Exhibit 10) and four live cartridges (Exhibit 11/1 to 11/4) were recovered. Some recove ries were made from other co-accused also, which are not relevant for the purpose of this appeal. Those article were sealed on the spot and recovery memo was prepared.

(3.) AFTER appraisal of the entire evidence and circumstance on the record, the learned Sessions Judge extended the benefit of doubt to the accused on the charges under Sections 399 and 402, I. P. C. However, he believed the prosecution version as regards the recoveries under Section 25, Arms Act and convicted the accused appellants-accordingly.