STATE OF U.P.versusRAM BEHARI

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                   GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1530 of 1986

State of U.P.
                                                           .....Appellant(s)
                                  Versus

Ram Behari
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)                   :   A.G.A.
Counsel for Respondent(s)                  :   , Vijay Singh Sengar

Court No. - 53
                       HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State/appellant, Sri Ajay
Singh Sengar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vijay Singh Sengar, learned
counsel for the accused-respondent-Ram Behari and perused the record.
The trial court records have also been summoned and the paper book of
the matter is ready which have been perused.

3. This appeal under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the
State against the judgment and order dated 31.01.1986 passed by the
Special Judge (Anti Dacoity) Jalaun at Orai by which the trial court court
while extending the benefit of doubt acquitted the accused Ram Behari
for the charges levelled against him under Section 25 of the Arms Act
read with Section 14 of the U.P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act No. 31 of
1983.

4. This appeal was admitted vide order dated 09.04.1990 and bailable
warrants were issued against accused respondent and in compliance of it
he was released on bail.

5. A First Information Report was lodged on 11.04.1983 at 14:05 P.M. as
Case Crime No. 94-98 of 1983, under Section 25 of the Arms Act read
with Section 10 of U.P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act No. 31 of 1983, P.S.
Rampura, District Jalaun by Chinta Mani Singh, the SHO of the said
police station against Vishnu, Lalji, Kashi Prasad, Ram Behari and
Keshav on the basis of a recovery and arrest memo.

6. The prosecution story is that on 11.04.1983 the then SHO/first
informant along with his police team consisting of four constables of
outpost Gohan, three armed police guards of the same outpost, four armed
police guards of outpost Jajepur and four constables of outpost of Umari
were doing combing operation in the jungle in search of dacoits. While
they were going from the side of Bhairav Mandir towards village
                                                      GOVA No. 1530 of 1986
                              2


Hanumanan they saw five miscreants coming from the side of the village
and on seeing them, the miscreants started running away towards village
Hanumanan. They were chased by the police party and were finally
apprehended at about 11:00 am by using necessary force. On
interrogation they disclosed their names and addresses. One of the
persons disclosed his name as Ram Behari. On his personal search by the
SHO he was found in possession of 27 live cartridges of 315 bore, 40
cartridges of S.L.R. and 20 cartridges which were like pointed bullet of
copper for which he could not produce the required license. The other
persons were also found in possession of some arms and ammunitions and
their recovery memos were also made. The articles recovered from each
of them were separately sealed at the spot and separate bundles and fard
recovery memo was prepared. They were brought at the police station on
11.04.1983 at 02:05 pm the FIR was thus registered. The recovery memo
is Exb: Ka-1 to the records.

7. Sanction order of District Magistrate concerned was obtained, the same
is Exb: Ka-5 to the records. The matter was investigated and a charge
sheet which is Exb: Ka-6 to the records was submitted. The Special Judge
(Anti Dacoity) Jalaun at Orai vide order dated 04.04.1985 framed charge
against the accused Ram Behari for offence punishable under Section 25
of the Arms Act read with Section 14 of the U.P. Dacoity Affected Areas
Act No. 31 of 1983. The charge was read over and explained to the
accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. The trial in the matter started in which Chintamani Singh the first
informant was examined as PW-1, S.L. Yadav the second Investigating
Officer of the matter who submitted charge sheet against the applicant
was examined as PW-2 and Shyam Singh the first Investigating Officer
and witness of the fard recovery as PW-3. The accused in his statement
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution story in full.
He claimed false implication. He stated that he has been apprehended by
the police from Haar and has been falsely implicated in the matter.
However no defence evidence was led. The trial court after perusing the
records came to the conclusion that it is a fit case where the benefit of
doubt needs to be extended to the accused and thus acquitted him by
given him benefit of doubt. The present appeal has thus been filed
challenging the said judgment and order as aforesaid.

9. PW-1 Chintamani Singh is the police officer who was a leading team
for combing operation. He states about the said incident as noted in the
recovery memo. He is the first informant of the matter also. He proves the
recovery memo and states of lodging of the FIR.

10. PW-2 S.L. Yadav stated that he took up the investigation after it was
transferred from Chandra Bhan Dubey from 22.08.1983. He states to have
sought the sanction to prosecute from the District Magistrate which was
proved as Exb: Ka-5. He then prepared the site plan on 09.09.1983 on the
                                                         GOVA No. 1530 of 1986
                                3


showing of S.I. Shyam Singh and Constable Kishori Lal etc. The same
was marked as Exb: Ka 4 to the records. He then submitted a charge sheet
against the accused which is Exb: Ka-6 to the records.

11. Shyam Singh PW-3 states that he was a member of combing team and
had gone to the jungle. He corroborates the version given by PW-1 and
testifies his signature on the fard recovery memo which is Exb: Ka-1
which was prepared by him on the dictation to Chintamani Singh PW-1.

12. The trial court while deciding the matter observed that the incident in
the present matter had taken place on 11.04.1983 and the statement of
Shyam Singh and other witnesses was recorded by the Investigating
Officer after a period of four months. It is further observed that the site
plan of the alleged place of occurrence was prepared after a period of five
months. It observed that there was no explanation given by the
prosecution regarding such inordinate delay and thus has suspected the
veracity of the prosecution case. Further the story of the prosecution that
the accused had disclosed that they were taking the weapon for repair
which were then directed to be handed over to the some other person is
also not considered to be truthful inasmuch as from the possession of the
applicant only cartridges were recovered but no arms were recovered and
thus the story of the prosecution of getting arms repaired also does not
corroborate the version of the prosecution inasmuch as it is observed that
since cartridges were recovered, there was no need for their repair and
thus carrying cartridges was of no useful purpose. It further considered
the contradictions in the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 with regards to the
movement of police team wherein the said two witnesses give different
directions of their movement. It thus came to the conclusion that the
prosecution story is highly suspicious and not truthful and cannot be
worthy of any credence and thus the extended the benefit of doubt to the
accused against all the charges and levelled against him.

13. Learned counsel for the State-appellants submitted that in so far as the
accused respondent is concerned, there has been recovery of cartridges
from his possession for which he could not show any valid permit or
license and thus they were illegal and were being possessed illegally. It is
submitted that the present case relates to a place which is dacoity affected
and the movement of the accused with his four other associates would go
to show that they were in possession of illegal firearms and cartridges and
were in dacoity affected area which also go to show that their intention to
use the said recovered items as and when needed. It is submitted that thus
the charges which were framed were proper and legal and the trial court
should have convicted them in the charged offences falling back on the
evidence collected in the trial and during investigation. It is submitted that
thus the judgement and order of the trial court is illegal and perverse and
deserve to be set aside.

14. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused respondent submitted that
                                                                                            GOVA No. 1530 of 1986
                                                                   4


                                    in so far as the story of the prosecution regarding the reason for the
                                    accused moving does not get verified from the recovery as alleged from
                                    the applicant inasmuch as only some cartridges are shown to be recovered
                                    from him but there are no firearms recovered. It is submitted that there are
                                    serious contradictions in the statements of PW-1 and PW-3 with regards
                                    to the movement of the police party and the direction from which they
                                    were coming. It is further submitted that there has been inordinate delay
                                    in recording of the statements of the witnesses which is of four months
                                    and also of preparing of the site plan of the same which is about five
                                    months for which there is no plausible explanation which would go to
                                    show that the entire material was an afterthought. It is submitted that even
                                    otherwise the present appeal stands from the judgment and order of
                                    acquittal and one of the reasonable views in the present matter has been
                                    taken by the trial court concerned which as per the settled principles of
                                    law do not deserve to be set aside and reversed, since it is one of the
                                    probable views possible in the present matter on the material available on
                                    record. It is submitted that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and
                                    deserves to be dismissed.

                                    15. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the
                                    records, it is evident that this appeal has been preferred against the
                                    judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.01.1986 recorded by the trial
                                    court. The reasons as enumerated by the trial court for extending benefit
                                    of doubt to the accused respondent and thereby acquitting him are sound
                                    reasons based on material available on record. It cannot be said that the
                                    said reasons are totally perverse and against the weight of evidence on
                                    record. The trial court has extensively given its finding and its reasons for
                                    recording an acquittal of the accused respondent which is based on
                                    records by extending benefit of doubt. There is no reason for interference
                                    in the impugned judgment and order of the trial court.

                                    16. In view of the same, looking to the facts and circumstances of the
                                    case, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.

                                    17. The accused respondent is on bail. The bail bond is cancelled and
                                    sureties are discharged. In so far as the material exhibits being the life
                                    cartridges Exbs: 2 to 88 are concerned they shall be subjected to
                                    confiscation of the State in compliance of the judgment and order of the
                                    trial court dated 31.01.1986.

                                    18. Office to communicate this judgment and order along with trial court
                                    records to the trial court concerned within two weeks.


                                                                                               (Samit Gopal,J.)
                                    March 19, 2026
                                    M. ARIF




Digitally signed by :-
MOHAMMAD ARIF
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad