- (1.) R. K. Singh, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 12th Decem ber, 1978 passed by Sri L. S. Shukla, VI Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Session Trial Nos. 190 of 1976,320 of 1977,317 of 1977,330 of 1977,350 of 1977 and 289 of 1977 by which all the five appellants have been convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 400 each under Section 144, IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each. All the appellants were, however, charged for the offence punishable under Sections 144 and 307 read with Section 149, IPC and Section 25 (1) (b) of the Arms Act. They were acquitted of the charge under Sections 307/149, IPC and 25 (1) (b) Arms Act while they were convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 144, IPC as mentioned above.
(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that in the night of 1st of June, 1975 at 8. 30 p. m. the Station Officer of police station Powayan got a confidential information that a few criminals have collected at the house of Ram Sagar son of Dodram in village Jarmanu. Accordingly he took with him the police personnel and reached at the house of Ram Sagar in village Jarmanu at about 9. 30 p. m. and they entered into the house of Ram Sagar in village Jarmanu and found five persons sitting on the cot in the court-yard (Angan) of the house. As soon as the said person saw the police force, two of them fired at the police force. THE remaining three persons were armed with Bhalas. THE police force took shelter of the wall by the side of the door so they were not hit by the bullets. THEy then surrounded those five persons and arrested them and recovered two fire arms and three Bhalas from the said five accused persons. THEy brought them to the police station and after complet ing the investigation in the case they submitted charge-sheet against them. The accused persons were put on trial and they pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and claimed to be tried. Teh statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code in which they all have denied the entire prosecution allegations. The prosecution examined four witnesses. PW-2 did not support the prosecution story hence he was declared hostile by the prosecution. PW-1 is the informant of this case, namely, Bhagwati Prasad Misra who was then posted as the Station Officer, P. S. Powayan. PW-3 Paragu is a witness of search and PW-4 Sohan Pal Singh is also a police officer who has corroborated the evidence of PW-1 on all the points. PW- 5 Madhau Singh is the investigating officer and PW-6 Barkat Ali Constable and PW 7 P. P. Singh are the formal witnesses P. W. 5 Madhau Singh has proved the seizure memo Ex. Ka-15 PW 6 Barkat All has stated that he has deposited two Bhalas and two guns in the Malkhana under sealed covers. PW-7 PP. Singh says that the two fire arms seized in this case were effective fire arms and he has proved the sanction of the District Magistrate for prosecution of the said appellants under the Arms Act. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that when the charges under Section 307, I. P. C. and 25 (1) (b), Arms Act have failed then nothing remains to prove that the object of the five appellants was to commit the crime. His argument is that there is nothing to prove that the appellants has any criminal object so to assemble at the house of Ram Sagar and that assembly cannot be said to have become unlawful and punishable under Section 144, IPC. The learned A. G. A. has also conceded to this argu ment. Actually no criminal object is disclosed by the materials available on the record. The only object alleged was to commit a crime. No specification of the same has been disclosed So far as the possession of the said fire arms are concerned, it has not been proved beyonc doubts and the appellants have got acquittal. The other charge under Section 307, IPC ha: also failed. No other criminal object can be gathered from the evidence adduced by tht prosecution on record. Of course, the assembly of five appellants at the house of Ran Sagar on the alleged date and time is proved by the witnesses examined by the prosecution but there is nothing to prove any criminal object of the appellants specially when the two charges under Section 307, IPC and 25 (1) (b), Arms Act have failed. Under these cir cumstances the conviction and sentence as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge against the appellants cannot be upheld and the appellants are entitled to acquittal of this charge also. The appeal is, therefore, fit to be allowed. The appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentences as recorded by fie court below against each of the appellants are set aside. They are not requried to surrender and they are discharged from the liability of the bail bonds executed by each of them. Appeal allowed. .;