RAEES Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This is a case of firing upon the police personnel
by the accused, in which no policeman sustained injury. An
F.I.R. was lodged against the accused on 27.09.1997 in P.S.
Ramnagar in respect of offence punishable under Section
307 IPC, Section 25 Arms Act and Section 411 IPC. Three
different case crime nos. were registered. After the
investigation, two different charge sheets were submitted,
one under Section 307 I.P.C. and another under Section 25
Arms Act. The case was committed to the Court of
Sessions. When the trial commenced and prosecution
opened its case, charges under Section 307 IPC and 25
Arms Act were framed against the accused, to which he
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Since, offence under
Section 307 I.P.C. and Section 25 Arms Act were connected
with each other therefore, both the Sessions Trials were
decided together, by a common judgment and order. By
impugned judgment and order dated 05.09.2002, accused
Raees was exonerated of the charge of offence punishable
under Section 307 I.P.C. He was however, convicted under
Section 25 Arms Act. He was directed to undergo one
year's rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 500/,
in default of payment of which, he was required to undergo
further imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved against
the impugned judgment and order, present Criminal Appeal
was preferred by the convict.
(2.) The principal contention of learned counsel for
the appellant is that the conviction of the appellant for the
offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act was wholly
unsustainable, inasmuch as it was not permissible for the
trial court to accept prosecution evidence as regards offence
under Section 25 Arms Act and at the same time rejecting
same evidence as regards offence punishable under Section
307 I.P.C. The trial court was not permitted to blow hot and
cold at the same time. The trial court disbelieved that part of
evidence whereby, allegedly, the accused fired upon the
police personnel, and accepted the same evidence holding
that a country made pistol alongwith two live cartridges
were found from the possession of the accused.
(3.) Learned A.G.A., on the other hand submitted
that the maxim of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no
application in India. Part of evidence may be accepted by
the Court and remaining part of the same may be rejected.
Part of the statement of a witness may be accepted and
remaining part of the testimony of a witness may be
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.