SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J. - (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. This report Ex.P/9 was sent to the. Police Station Kesrisingh District Sri Ganganagar, where regular FIR Ex.P/10 was got registered and investigation was started. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused respondents in the Court of Magistrate, from where the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 10.1.1986, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar framed charges for the offence Under Sections 120B, 124A, 3/6 IPPR Act and 3/12 of the Passport Act against accused respondents Ravindra Singh, Amritpal Singh and Tajendra Singh and for the offence Under Sections 120B and 124A IPC against accused respondent Tahalsingh. The charges were read over and explained to the accused respondents, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.It may be stated here that as the accused respondent No.4 Tahalsingh has died during the pendency of this appeal, therefore, evidence in respect of him shall not be discussed. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 11 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused respondents Under Section 313 Cr. P.C. were recorded. After conclusion of trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Gangangar through his judgment and order of acquittal dated 10.5.1991 acquitted the accused respondents of the charges framed against them holding inter -alia that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused respondents. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 10.5.1991 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Gangangar, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal. In this appeal, it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Judge has not considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses 'and especially the statement of PW10 Mahendra Singh should have been believed by the learned trial Judge and thus, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal are erroneous one and should be set aside.
(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.;