Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:106472 Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3046 of 1983 Appellant :- R.M. Kishan And Anr. Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- S.P. Tiwari,Sunil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Present criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 30.11.1983 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Session Trial No. 51 of 1982 (State Versus Ram Kishan), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and 25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Sirsaganj, District Mainpuri by which learned trial court has acquitted the appellant under Section 148 and 307 read with section 149 I.P.C. but convicted and sentenced under Section 25 of the Arms Act with fine of Rs. 500/- each. In default to go rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3. The appeal for the appellant no.2-Radha Kishan has already been abated due to his death. 4. Facts in brief are that PW-1 Manvir Singh Rathi the complainant posted as Station House Officer, Police Station Sirsaganj, District Mainpuri, followed by other police personnel, at about 10 P.M. in the night arrested the appellant with other co-accused persons, who opened fire on the police party, but without causing any injury to any police personal. The appellant and one other person were arrested by the police whereas others ran away and during the course of search, one country made Tamancha 12 Bore with empty cartridges was recovered from the possession of the appellant for which recovery memo was prepared on the spot and case was registered at the police station under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and 25 of the Arms Act. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant with other co-accused person. Learned trial court framed the charges against the appellant, which was read over and explained to them, they denied and claimed for trial. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that he is innocent and has committed no offence, but the local police due to enmity booked him with other co-accused persons by showing false recovery of 'Tamancha', with two live cartridges and also for making fire on police party in the night. He further argued that on the same set of evidence, learned trial court has acquitted the appellant under Section 307 I.P.C. but convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act, though there was no independent witness to prove the Fard recovery. In this way learned trial court has committed an error in passing the judgment, therefore, request to set aside the impugned judgement and allow the appeal. 6. The prosecution has examined PW-1-Manvir Singh Rathi, PW- 2-Jai Singh, PW-3- Sone Lal, Investigating Officer. PW-1 and PW-2 supported the prosecution version before the trial court. He proved the recovery memo and other relevant papers. He also proved the recovery of Tamancha with empty cell cartridge and the three live cartridges recovered from the possession of Ram Kishan as material Ext. 1 and material Ext. 2/2 to 2/3 respectively. PW-2 Jai Singh, who was an eye witness of the incident has also supported the prosecution version of PW-1 Manvir Singh Rathi regarding recovery of Tamchcha and live cartridges. The Investigating Officer, Sone Lal examined as PW-3 has proved the investigation and also proved the prosecution sanction against the appellant. 7. An opportunity to cross-examination was given to the appellant but during course of cross-examination nothing adverse was found to effect the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Only on being police personnel, reliability of the police witnesses cannot be questioned. There was no any enmity between the appellant and arresting officer or other police personnel accompanying him at the time of alleged incident. In this way the prosecution has successfully proved the recovery of country made pistol, one empty and two live cartridges from the possession of the present appellant on the basis of which learned trial court has convicted and sentenced him for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act with fine of Rs. 500/-. There appears no any error of fact or law in recording the findings by the learned trial court. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. 9. Let trial court record be sent back to the concerned court for necessary compliance. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 T.S. Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad