Ram Singh v. State of Haryana

H.S.Bedi, J.:-

(1) This appeal is directed against the order of the sessions judge, rohtak, whereby he has recorded a conviction against the appellant under section 5 of the explosive substances act, 1980 and sentenced him to r. I. For 4 year. The prosecution story in brief is that on 7th february, 1987, sub inspector jai singh, s. H. O. , police station sample was present at the police station when he received the information that the appellant was in possession of a hand grenade. Upon this information, he recorded the f. I. R. Ex. Pj and after forming a raiding party consisting of himself, asi prem singh and other police officials proceeded to the village of the appellant. On the way, he met p. W. 2 dharmbir at the bus stand and took him along as a member of the raiding party. While they saw him standing on the roadside and on being identifies by p. W. 2 dharambir he taken into custody and thereafter interrogated whereby he disclosed that he had kept hand grenade concealed in his residential house. It has been alleged by the prosecution that in pursuance of the disclosure statement, the hand grenade was duly recovered. The had grenade was then after sent to the forensic science laboratory, madhuban, which in its report identified it as an explosive substance that could cause damage to life and property. The section of the district magistrate having obtained, the appellant was challaned and thereafter convicted as already stated.

(2) In order to prove its cads, the prosecution examined 7 witness including s. I. Jai singh, asi prem singh as also dharambir (p. W. 2) in addition to the formal witnesses. Dharambir (p. W. 2) however denied his signatures on the disclose statement and other relevant documents and was thereafter declared hostile at the instance of the public prosecution.

(3) The learned trial court at the first instance tried the offence as a designated court but there after in view of usmanbhai dawoodbhai memon and other v. State of the gujarat a. I. R. 1988 supreme court 922, the case was taken up and tried as an ordinary session case vide order dated 16. 5. 1988. The court had been declared hostile the conviction was still maintainable at the instance of the two police officials, i. E. Asi prem singh and s. I. Jai sing who constituted the raiding party.

(4) It has been urged by mr. I. S. Balhara, learned counsel for the appellant that the raid was conducted in some information having been received by the police and, as such, there was sufficient time available with the raiding party to comply with the provisions of section 100 of the cr. P. C. By joining two independent persons as witnesses as required by that section and the same having not been done, the conviction recorded was not in order. On fact, he has started that keeping in view the facts of the case, and particularly that even the grenade when it was sent for examination to the forensic science laboratoiry appeared to have been changed, create a doubt about the prosecution changed, create a doubt about the prosecution story. I find merit in this contention. The provisions of section 100 cr. P. C. Have admittedly not been complied with and even the solitary independent witnesses did not support the prosecution and was, therefore, declared hostile. Moreover, it appears from the evidence that the seals on the parcel enclosing the grenade when it was sent for examination had been tampered with and this coupled with other facts referred to story.

(5) For the reasons recorded above, the present appeal is allowed and the judgement and conviction recorded by the trial court are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offence alleged against him. Appeal allowed.