RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Singh appellant has come up in appeal against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dated 1st September, 1983, convicting and sentencing the appellant to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months, under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.

(2.) According to the prosecution on 5th August, 1981, the appellant was in the custody of C.I.A staff, Ludhiana, in connection with some Arms Act case. During the investigation of that case, the appellant while being interrogated got recovered pieces of hand grenade contained in a parcel Exhibit P.1, in consequence of his disclosure statement made In the presence of witnesses Dr. Vijay Sood, P.W 1 and Jaswant Singh, who was not examined by the prosecution. According to the report Exhibit P.E, of the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives North Circle, Agra, it was found to be hand grenade of Mill's type No. 36 M MK-1 of service origin and was capable to endangering life on explosion. The igniter-set which is a device for initialing explosion in the hand grenade of the type mentioned, was not however, found fitted. The appellant was challenged under the Explosives Substances Act and sent for trial. In his examination under Section 313 of the Code or Criminal Procedure, the appellant impleaded false implication because of his strained relations with Jaswant Singh. In defence the examined Head constable Sat Pal Singh D. W. 1 and Kuldip Singh, Constable No. 51 of Division No.6 Ludhiana, who proved that Jaswant Singh and others Were prosecuted in a murder case and were also convicted and sentenced.

(3.) Out of the two public witnesses joined by Inspector Sant Saran, P. W.5, Jaswant Singh, with whom the, appellant had alleged enmity was not examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. The only witness from the public produced is Dr. Vijay Sood, P.W.1. The reason which he gave for his presence in the C.I.A. staff was that his cycle had been stolen and he had come to know that C.I.A. Staff, Ludhiana had recovered some stolen cycles, so he had gone there to identify his cycle. However, in cross-examination he admitted that he did not have the receipt of the cycle with him nor did he lodge any report of the theft of his bicycle. Admittedly the appellant was in the custody of the police earlier. The story of disclosure statement and the statement of P. W. 1, Dr. Vijay Sood, do not inspire confidence. The whole matter appears to be a cooked-up.