1. - Since the controversy involved in both the appeals, arise out of the same FIR number and same judgment, hence, the same are being decided by this common Judgment.

2. By filing these two separate appeals under Section 374 Cr.P.C., the appellants have challenged the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.3.2006 passed by learned Additional Session Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bundi (for learned `Trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 11/2005, whereby it convicted all these accused appellants as under:

307/34 IPC : 10 years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ In default of payment of fine, each accused appellants shall further undergo six months' simple imprisonment.

353 IPC : Six month simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/-. In default of payment of fine, each accused appellants shall further undergo one month simple imprisonment.

3/25 Arms Act : Six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300/-. In default of payment of fine, each accused appellants shall further undergo one month simple imprisonment.
Brief facts of the case are that Shri Rishi Raj, SHO Police Station Indergarh had gone to Village Babai on 28.11.2004, for the investigation of Crime No. 103/2003, and 127/2004, under section 379 IPC. An informant informed him that three criminal type of persons are sitting near Belanganj Mod, in a blue colour Maruti car. They are possessing arms also. After receiving this information, he went to Belanganj Mod found a blue colour Maruti car No. RJ-17C-1125 standing there. The police jeep was stopped near it. The persons sitting on the back seat, fired and started the Maruti car and went towards Khejdi in District Tonk. Police party chased them. Near village Mui, two accused sitting on the back seat fired them after aiming. The accused persons were continuously firing on police party. The police persons lay down on the land and arrested the accused persons alongwith their pistol and cartridges. On interrogation, first accused told his name to be Devendra Singh @ Bhanu Pratap Singh, second Bhupendra Singh and third Shakti Singh. They were not having any licence for the illegal weapons. After making the recovery of illegal weapons and arresting the accused seizing the car, the police party came to be the Police Station.

3. The police on the basis of this report, registered an FIR No. 217/2004. for the offences u/Ss. 307, 353/34 IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act.

4. The police after investigation submitted challan against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences.

5. The learned trial court framed the charges against the accused persons. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial in the matter.

6. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 17 witnesses and certain documents were exhibited. Thereafter, the statements of the accused appellants u/S 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded.

7. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties convicted and sentenced the accused appellants vide Judgment 18.3.2006 as mentioned above. The accused appellants being aggrieved with the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence has preferred two different appeals.

8. Learned counsel for the accused appellants during the course of argument submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to consider the following points which were raised when the aforesaid Judgment was passed:

1. Admission made before the District Magistrate is not valid under the law because this admission has been given to Mr. Mahendra Parakh, Addl. District Magistrate but the powers of District Magistrate cannot be transferred.

2. All the witnesses are of police personnels. Neither any independent witnesses have been included in the list of witnesses nor the Investigating Officer has tried to include the same.

3. Recovery has been made from the open place and all the proceeding regarding recovery have been made in the police station.

4. When proclaimed offender is arrested then information to this is given to the higher authorities but in this matter n