- (1.) Challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 31.8.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 4, District Lakhimpur Kheri in Sessions Trial No. 151 of 2002, 152 of 2002, 153 of 2002 and 154 of 2002, which were disposed of by a common judgment and by the said judgment, the appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Appellant Ram Baran was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also with fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation of two months additional rigorous imprisonment. The other two appellants, namely, Ram Naresh and Bharat were convicted for the said offence and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and also with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation of one month additional rigorous imprisonment. However, the appellants were acquitted of the charges levelled under Sections 307 & 216 I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. There was one more accused Pohpi, who was also tried along with the appellants and has been acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. He was not an accused under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
(2.) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the instant appeal may be summerized as under:- On 21.11.2000 S.O. Pasgawan, Ditrict Lakhimpur Kheri, on the basis of a secret information received through an informer constituted a police party under his leadership, in order to arrest the wanted criminals and went to village Ganeshpur. The jeep was parked on the outskirts of the village. The police procured Ram Lakhan son of Mohan, Asharam son of Dammar, Ram Kishun son of Chhanga and Bal Govind son of Raghuvar Yadav as independent witness and disclosed their purpose. The independent persons were informed that in the house of Pohapi son of Sumair, four known criminal, having illegal weapons, are staying and they are planning to commit an offence. Thereafter the police party along with informer and independent witnesses, came near the Baggar of said Pohpi. The informer went back. Different teams of police party were formed and the Baggar was raided. The police party peeped into the house. They found that four persons sitting on cots, were taking lunch. At one cot, one gun and one country made pistol and on the other cot one gun and country made pistol and a cartridge belt were kept. One old man was serving food to them. Seeing the illegal weapons, the police party was satisfied that these were the wanted criminals. Thereafter the police party pushed open the door and challenged the culprits. The culprits started firing. Thereafter the police party also started firing in their defence and in such exchange of firing, one person from the side of miscreants died. The police party arrested the three other culprits in the Baggar and the identity of the dead person was disclosed as Ram Bhajan son of Shankar. From the possession of appellant Ram Baran, one SBBL country made 12 bore gun was recovered and country made pistols were recovered from the other two appellants. Pohpi was also arrested. The recovery memo was prepared. On the basis of the memo of arrest and recovery, the case was registered and after investigation, the charge sheet under Section 307 & 216 I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act was filed against all the appellants and charge sheets under Section 25 of the Arms Act was filed separately against all the appellants. Since the entire incident took place in the same transaction, therefore, all the cases were tried together and were disposed of by a common judgment.
(3.) The case of the defence was that they have been falsely implicated. The dead body of one Ram Bhajan was found lying in the grove of the village and the S.O. in order to take credit of this death, has prepared this false case and fabricated this case showing that the incident has taken place in the Baggar of Pohpi. However, Pohpi was acquitted of the charges levelled against him.;