RAGHUBIR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by Raghubir, Shyam Lal and Babu against a judgment and order of Temporary Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, convicting them of an offence under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act and sentencing each of them R. I. for two years.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that on the night between 17th and 18th of April, 1971, an information was received at police station Kotwali, Pilibhit that some persons would assemble in the grove of Ram Bharose at village Gauhnia for committing dacoity on trucks and bullock-carts. On receipt of this information, a raid was organised by the Inspector Incharge, Police Station Kotwali. It was comprised of Dal Chand, Nathulal son of Shri Ram, Nathulal son of Sitaram, Puranlal, Hemraj and Azmat Shah, all of whom had been collected from Pilibhit town and from the way. At about 1.45 a. m., some persons collected in the grove and after hearing their conversation a raid was arranged and seven persons were arrested. Three of these persons were the appellants who were also found in possession of country-made pistols and some cartridges for which they had no licence. All the seven persons were prosecuted for the offences under Section 399/402, IPC and 25, Indian Arms Act. THE learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the seven persons of the offence under Section 399/402,, IPC, while convicted the appellants as already stated.

(3.) THE learned trial court disbelieved the entire prosecution story as to the assembly of the seven persons in the grove of Ram Bharose and the raid by the police party. It has also disbelieved that Nathulal and Azmat Shah were present at the scene of the occurrence. Regarding Azmat Shah (PW 5), it was pointed out that he had come to Pilibhit for purchases; that he saw pictures at Pilibhit till 10.00 p. m. and that he left Pilibhit thereafter. According to the trial court, he must have reached the culvert from where he is alleged to have been picked up by the police at 12.00. Since the police got information about the collection of the miscreants in the grove of Ram Bharose for the purpose of committing dacoity after 12.00, the witness could not be available at the culvert at that time. It was rightly pointed out that Ram Bharose was also a got up witness. He was unable to state from whom the property was recovered and it was also pointed out that if he were present at the scene of the occurrence, he would have certainly mentioned the name of Pratap Singh whom he had been knowing from before. He was unable to identify other miscreants. THE trial court also disbelieved the statements of R. S. Dwivedi and Babu Singh because in its view they were also unable to identify, most of the miscreants.