RANGRAO DNYANU NIKAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the accused against his conviction under Section 19 (f), Arms Act and under Section 5, Explosive Substances Act, and the sentences passed upon him by the Sessions Judge, South Satara.

(2.) The accused was arrested on March 12, 1950, I connection with some other offence. On March 20, 1950, he informed the Police Sub-Inspector, witness Bajirac Joshi, in the presence of panchas that he was in possession of a bomb, that he had concealed it in the compound of the dilapidated wada of Shamrao Nikam in the village of Chinehani and that he would point out the place at which he had kept the bomb. He then took the police and the panchas to the wada of Shamrao Nikam. There he removed a stone from the comer of one of the walls and took out a handgrenade. Thereafter from a heap of stones he took out two live revolver cartridges and produced them before the police. On these facts, the accused was subsequently sent up for trial for committing offences under Section 19 (f) of the Indian Arms Act and under Section 5, Explosive Substances Act, He pleaded not guilty to the charges. He stated that he and Shamrao were related, that he, therefore, used to go to Shamrao's wada frequently, that Shamrao had told him that he bad collected handgrenades and other arms and that he subsequently showed to him the places at which he had kept them. He, therefore, denied that he bad himself kept the articles at the places, which had been pointed out by him or that he was in possession of or bad control over them, The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the plea of the Rangrao Dnyanu Nikam vs. State (26.06.1951 -BOMHC) Page 3 of 6 grao Dnyanu Nikam vs. State (26.06.1951 -BOMHC) Page 3 of 6 accused, having regard to the statement which he had made before the police and the panchas before he pointed out the places at which the articles were found. In that statement the accused had stated that be had concealed the bomb at that place. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, convicted the accused under Section 19 (f) of the Indian Arms Act and under Section 5 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act, and sentenced him to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The accused has appealed against his conviction and the sentence passed upon him.

(3.) The principal point which arises for consi-deration in this appeal is whether the statement of the accused that be had concealed the articles in Shamrao's wada is admissible in evidence. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which is an exception to Sections 24, 25 and 26 of this Act, provides that: