JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J. By way of instant criminal appeal, challenge has been made to the validity and sustainability of the judgement and order dated 19.02.1987 passed by Special Jduge (DAA) and III Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Special Case No. 27 of 1984 (State Vs. Prem Kishore and others), Police Station- Khanna, District- Hamirpur, whereby the appellants- Prem Kishore, Jagdish and Munna- have been convicted and sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. under Section 399/402 IPC read with Section 2(B) 10/12 U.P. D.A.A. Act and three years R.I. under Section 307 IPC read with Section 2(B) 10/12 U.P. D.A. Act and one year R.I. under Section 25 Arms Act. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. However, the aforesaid sentences shall not be imposed, instead, each of the appellant has been given benefit of probation and has been directed to maintain good behaviour and keep peace for a period of three years and to furnish personal bond for Rs.500/- with two sureties each in the like amount. Thus this appeal is primarily directed against the order of conviction and the aforesaid probation order. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case, as discernible from record, appear to be that on 10.12.1983 at about 9.40 P.M. The Station Officer Ram Singh received information that a gang of dacoits is about to assemble for committing dacoity at the house of Rajendra Singh Pradhan of the village. Thereupon the said Station Officer took with him S.I. Kewal Singh S.I. Mahesh Babu Gupta, Constable Ram Autr, Constable Babu Lal, Constable Jagdeo Prasad, Constable Kishan Swarup, Constable Behari Lal, Constable Ram Kumar, Constable Jageswar and Constable Arjun Singh and proceeded from the police station at about 10 P.M., to arrest the bandits red- handed. Constable Balbir Singh and Arjun Singh were sent to bring the witnesses. They brought the witnesses Rajendra Singh and Munna Singh within 15 minutes. Thereupon Constable Balbir Singh and Arjun Singh were sent for safety of the hosue of Rajendra Singh Pradhan. 4. Thereafter the Station Officer divided the police force and the witnesses into two separate parties. First one was headed by Station officer Ram Singh himself and the second party was headed by Inspector Kewal Singh. 5. Thereupon Constable Balbir Singh and Arjun Singh were sent for safety of the hosue of Rajendra Singh Pradhan. 4. Thereafter the Station Officer divided the police force and the witnesses into two separate parties. First one was headed by Station officer Ram Singh himself and the second party was headed by Inspector Kewal Singh. 5. After assuming and being satisfied that it was the same gang of dacoits about which the information had been received, the Station Officer fired shots in the air to scare them away and challenged the bandits, who in retaliation exchanged the fire, and tried to ensure their escape but three of the bandits, namely, Prem Kishore, Jagdish and Munna were arrested on the spot at about 11.30 P.M., whereas, three of the bandits made their escape good from the place of occurrence. 6. In search of accused Prem Kishore, one SBBL Gun factory made and five live cartridges were recovered from his possession. One countrymade pistol and two live cartridges were recovered from the possession of accused Jagdish. One country made gun and two live cartridges were recovered from the possession of accused Munna. The recovered materials were kept in sealed cover and recovery memo was prepared at about 1 A.M. in the said night. The said arrest and recovery memo is Exhibit Ka-1. The accused confessed their guilt before the police. 7. Thereafter report was lodged at the police station and Check report, Exhibit Ka-2, was prepared on 11.2.1983 at 1.45 A.M. in the said night- on the basis of recovery memo Exhibit Ka-1. Simultaneously, entry in the General Diary (Exhibit Ka-3) was made on 11.2.1983 at 1.45 AM under aforesaid sections of Indian Penal Code against the accused and case was registered at Case Crime No.147 of 1983. 8. The investigation ensued and was taken over by Ram Singh, who recorded the statement of the witnesses and inspected the spot and prepared the site plan as Exhibit Ka-7. 9. Upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheets (Exhibit Ka.8 to Ka. 11) were filed against the appellants under aforesaid sections of Indian Penal Code. Sanction for prosecution Exhibit Ka-4 and Exhibit Ka-6 were also obtained from the District Magistrate, Hamirpur on 1.2.1984 by the I.O. 10. 9. Upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheets (Exhibit Ka.8 to Ka. 11) were filed against the appellants under aforesaid sections of Indian Penal Code. Sanction for prosecution Exhibit Ka-4 and Exhibit Ka-6 were also obtained from the District Magistrate, Hamirpur on 1.2.1984 by the I.O. 10. The committal proceeding took place, the case of the appellants was transferred to the court of Special Judge (DAA) and III Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur after numbering as Special Case No.27 of 1984, State Vs. Prem Kishore and others. 11. The appellants were heard on the point of charge and were charged under Section 399/402 and 307 IPC and 25 Arms Act read with Section 2(B) 10/12 U.P. D.A.A. Act. Charges were read over and explained to the appellants, who abjured the charges and opted for trial. 12. The prosecution has examined Sri Munna Singh as P.W.1 and Inspector Ram Singh as P.W.2. Accused have admitted the genuineness of the papers, therefore, formal witnesses were not examined by the prosecution. 13. Evidence for the prosecution was closed and statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they have pleaded not guilty and termed their implication false. 14. No defence evidence has been adduced by the accused. 15. The trial court after hearing arguments and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and evaluating evidence on record, entered finding of conviction and sentenced the appellants under the aforesaid sections of Indian Penal Code, but gave them benefit of probation for keeping good behaviour for three years, which paved way for this appeal before this Court. 16. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Sri B.D. Nishad and Sri Sushil Kumar, learned AGAs for the State and Sri Rajiv Lochan Dwivedi, learned brief holder for the State and perused the record. 17. It has been succinctly claimed on behalf of the appellants that the entire gamut of testimony on record, vis-a-vis facts and circumstances of the case, when taken together as a whole do not form any coherence and do not give any consistent view of the incident that it occurred in the manner and style claimed by the police/informant side, the entire story is concocted, fabricated and outcome of mischievous mind of the informant and his colleagues. 18. It has been further contended that veracity of the police action does not find corroboration from independent source. 18. It has been further contended that veracity of the police action does not find corroboration from independent source. The accused were infact taken by the police from their respective houses. While summing up his arguments, learned counsel has also stressed on point that though it is a judgement of conviction and advantage of provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act has been extended to the appellants, it is obvious that more than three years of probation period as directed by the trial court has elapsed on 19.02.1990, since the judgement was delivered on 19.02.1987, but no adverse report/information regarding bad conduct/behaviour or any activity by or on behalf of the appellants has been reported by any person or authority up to this stage. Consequently, the direction as contained in the judgement of the trial court dated 19.02.1987 for keeping peace and be of good behaviour for three years stood suffered and complied with by efflux of time. 19. Learned AGA has supported the conviction and sentence awarded against the appellants and has submitted that there is no specific reason to falsely implicate the appellants by the police party. He has also supported the operative portion of the judgement, whereby advantage of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act has been given to the accused. Appeal lacks merit. 20. Also considered the rival submissions. 21. The moot point that arises for adjudication of this appeal relates to fact whether the prosecution has been able to prove the charges levelled against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt? 22. Obviously, the case revolves around the factum of tip off information being received by the police around 9.40 P.M. in the night of 10.12.1983, which led to the arrest of the accused around 11.30 P.M. the same night near the said well in the field of Ramadhar in concerned police station- Khanna, district- Hamirpur. The site plan of the incident/the spot of arrest of the appellants- is very much available on the record, which has been proved by the Investigating Officer- Ram Singh- P.W.2. The factum of arrest of the appellants stood verified by independent witness- Munna P.W.1, who was taken by the police party with it prior to the raid. This way, authenticity of police raid and arrest and seizure process cannot be doubted. The factum of arrest of the appellants stood verified by independent witness- Munna P.W.1, who was taken by the police party with it prior to the raid. This way, authenticity of police raid and arrest and seizure process cannot be doubted. Nothing adverse has emerged on record, which may reflect malafide attitude of the police, as to how they were interested in ensuring conviction of the appellants. It is also noteworthy that statement of Munna P.W.1 has been fully corroborated by S.I. Sri Ram Singh P.W.2, who has proved the FIR, recovery memo etc. 23. It is noticeable that both these witnesses (Munna P.W.1 and S.I. Sri Ram Singh P.W.2) have been cross-examined at length, but nothing anomalous or adverse has emerged in their testimony to cast any doubt on the creditability of their testimonial version. 24. Though slight contradictions emerge in their testimony, but the said contradictions are natural one, which reflect more on point that the witnesses are not tutored than serious aberration. Therefore, the entirety of the prosecution testimony on the whole inspires confidence and establishes charges under various sections of IPC beyond reasonable doubt and proves fact that the accused had assembled for committing robbery at the time of occurrence, and they were caught by the police party. Thus, it stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had caused firing before they were nabbed by the police party, thus attempted to commit murder of the police personnel who formed the raiding party. 25. It is well established jurisprudential principle that the prosecution would have to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt only then the guilt will be taken to have been established against an accused as is the case in hand. 26. Consequently, the impugned judgement and order dated 19.02.1987 passed by Special Judge (DAA) and III Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Special Case No. 27 of 1984 (State Vs. Prem Kishore and others), Police Station- Khanna, District- Hamirpur is hereby affirmed. 27. The learned trial Judge while appraising the facts and circumstances of the case and evaluating testimony of the prosecution witnesses has rightly convicted the accused and passed just order, which is upheld in this appeal and the appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. 28. Prem Kishore and others), Police Station- Khanna, District- Hamirpur is hereby affirmed. 27. The learned trial Judge while appraising the facts and circumstances of the case and evaluating testimony of the prosecution witnesses has rightly convicted the accused and passed just order, which is upheld in this appeal and the appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. 28. However, it is clarified that in case, no personal bond along with two sureties of each Rs.5000/- have been furnished earlier as directed by the trial court, then they (accused) are required to furnish the personal bond with two sureties each for Rs.5000/-, which bond would have retrospective effect for the period confined to within three years next after the date of delivery of judgement by the court below. 29. Let a copy of this order/judgment be certified to the court below for necessary information and follow up action. ——————