STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RAVINDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 10.5.1991 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Gangangar Camp - Shrikaranpur in Sessions Case No. 45/85 by which he acquitted the accused respondents Ravindra Singh, Amritpal Singh and Tajendra Singh of the charges for the offence Under Sections 120B, 124A IPC and Section 3/6 IPPR Act and 3/12 of the Passport Act, 1969 and accused respondent Tahalsingh of the charge for the offence Under Sections 120B and 124A IPC.

(2.) THE necessary facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows: PW 9 Jilay Singh lodged a report Ex.P/9 with Superintendent of Police, Sri Gangangar on 17.9.1984 stating inter -alia that in FIR No. 292 dated 24.8.1984 of Police Station Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar for the offence Under Section 25 of the Arms Act, accused respondent Ravindra Singh was arrested and during investigation of that case, it came into light that on 7.6.1984, a meeting was convened in Gurudwara, Ganganagar, in which accused respondents Ravindra Singh, Amritpal Singh and Tajendra Singh and one Balvindra Singh participated and that meeting was convened against the military action which was taken by the Union Government in Amritsar and they all persons made conspiracy and according to that conspiracy, on 9.6.1984 the accused respondents assembled at 25H and in pursuance of that conspiracy, they removed khutas from the railway crossing 30H so that passenger train might upside down, but in that effort they did not achieve their object and, thereafter, on 10.6.1984 through BSF Check Post -IX, without any valid license, they crossed Indian Border and reached Pakistan and took shelter at Check Post Lalbanga and they met with the Pakistan officials and from there, they went to Lahore and stayed there for ten days and prepared a plan to cause damage to the property in India and returned back to India after obtaining six Hand -granades, two Stainguns and three Revolvers.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel for the accused respondents has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge are based on correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons, the learned trial Judge has acquitted the accused respondents of the charges framed against them and thus, no interference is called for with the impugned judgment and order in this appeal.