STATE OF U P Vs. RISHIKESH HARISHIKESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJESHWAR Singh, J. These two appeals arise out of the same judgment; be they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) FOUR persons were prosecuted under Section 3 of the Railways Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 for having Railway Property of their possession, which was reasonably suspected to be stolen. Out of these tout persons Ram Dhiraj was convicted and he was sentenced to pay a fine o' Rs. 500 and is default of payment of fine to undergo R. I. for six months. Three persons, namily, Rishikesh, Avadesh Kumar and Ramesh Kumar were acquitted by the Magistrate. The State has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 38u of 1978 for enhancing the sentence passed on Ram Dhiraj. The other appeal No. 543 of 1979 has been preferred by the State against acquittal of the 3 other accused

(3.) AS regards Rishi Kesh the learned Magistrate accepted his defence version that he had been implicated falsely and recovery from his possession was not belioved. The learned Magistrate came to this conclusion after consi dering the evidence and the circumstances that of the persons who were said to have brought the property could be arrested, and the witnesses differed as regards the tact whether occurrence took place when it was dark or not, whether the property recovered was in bags and whether Rishi Kesh was arrested in the Verandah or outside it on the road. When these contradictions were there, the trial court could take the view that the evidence is not reliable. When two views are possible, the view taken by the trial Court should not be upset, hence as regards Rishi Kesh, State appeal cannot succeed.