LAWS(ALL)-2018-8-31

MOTE Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On August 07, 2018
Mote Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 29.1.1988 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in S.T. No.214 of 1987 (State Vs. Mote), convicting the accused-appellant Mote under Sections 25(1)(a) & 27 Arms Act and under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentencing him with rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years, 2 years & 5 years respectively.

(2.) Heard Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned Amicus Curiae for accused-appellant, Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record as well as the lower court record summoned in appeal.

(3.) Upon hearing the parties' counsel and perusal of paper-book as well as the original record of court below summoned in the appeal, I find that as per prosecution case Station Officer Sri Dhirendra Rai of P.S. Pannuganj, Tehsil Robertsganj, District Mirzapur during investigation and search of the accused of Case Crime No.74 of 1987, under Section 302 I.P.C. upon information of informer found three persons and asked them to stop, upon which one of them fired at him with an intention to cause death of police personnel and two accused fled away by firing and when the former tried to reload his pistol he was apprehended with the country-made unauthorized pistol at 4:00 p.m. on 15.5.1987 in the jungles of village Suarsote. After above recovery Case Crime No.78 of 1987 was registered against the sole accused-appellant Moti under Section 307 I.P.C. and Case Crime No.79 of 1987 under Sections 25, 26 & 27 Arms Act. The charges were framed against him and the prosecution in order to prove the charges produced Dhirendra Rai, the complainant as P.W.-1, Constable Jeebu Mandal as P.W.-2 and S.I. Girish Chandra Singh as P.W.-3 and closed. The P.W.-2 was the member of patrol-party of P.W.-1 and has corroborated him while P.W.-3 is the Investigating Officer. It is pertinent to mention that P.W.-3 was Sub Inspector at same P.S. Pannuganj of which the complainant of this case i.e. P.W.-1 was S.O. and undisputedly the P.W.-3 was working as subordinate to P.W.-1.