Important Point
A vague statement that accused was already in police custody and the police had taken his signatures on blank papers cannot be regarded as sufficient to create any doubt regarding the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

Judgment

Nanavati, J.-This appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by the Court of the Additional Judge, Designated Court, Jalandhar in T.D. Sessions Case No. 8/95. The appellant has been convicted under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 read with Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

2. What is held proved against the appellant is that on a disclosure statement made by him 15 kgs of RDX powder, 5 detonators with some fuse wire and a sten-gun kept in a gunny bag and burried in the ground of the Handloom Centre of Village Dugri were recovered. In order to prove its case the prosecution had examined amongst other witnesses P.W. 11 Radha Krishan the Investigating Officer, P.W. 10 Mukhvinder Singh and P.W. 9 Mukhtiar Singh who had acted as an independent wit­ness to the making of the disclosure statement and recovery of the articles made pursuant thereto.

3. What is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant is that P.W. 9 Mukhtiar Singh who has been examined by the prosecution as independent witness is really a police agent and on the basis of his evidence it ought not to have been held proved that the appellant had made a statement that he had concealed the said articles and that police had recovered the same when those articles were dug out by the appellant after taking the police to that spot. It was submitted that Mukhtiar Singh had a tea stall just opposite the police station and he had also acted as witness in 3 to 4 cases as observed by the trial Court.

4. The fact that he was having a tea stall opposite police station stands proved as a result of the admission made by Mukhtiar Singh himself. He, however, denied the suggestion made by the defence that he was a witness in 3 to 4 cases of Kartarpur police station. In this cross examination he admitted that he was a witness in one case of conspiracy, but denied that he was a witness in any other case. In view of his denial and absence of any other material it is difficult to accept the contention that the said witness was repeatedly put up as a witness by the police and thus was under the thumb of police. On the contrary we find that during his cross examination he had tried to help the accused by stating that his signatures on all the documents were obtained at the police station.

5. The learned counsel also contended that if he is believed to be an independent witness, then it should have been held that recovery of the incriminating articles and their seizure was not made in presence of any independent person of the locality. The evidence of Inspector Radha Krishan and P.W. 10 Mukhvinder Singh is that the recovery and seizure memo was prepared at the place from where those articles were dug out by the appellant. In his examination-in-chief P.W. 10 Mukh­vinder Singh has also stated that those articles were seized in his presence and the memo exhibit P.W. 9/b was attested by him. That document shows that it was prepared at Village Dugri. In view of all this evidence the contention raised by the learned counsel cannot be accepted.

6. The learned counsel also pointed out certain inconsistencies in the evidence of those three witnesses and submitted that for that reason their evidence should not have been believed. We find that they are minor inconsistencies and they do not affect credibility of those witnesses. Learned counsel also contended that the stengun was not kept in a sealed packet after it was seized and thus the prosecution has failed to establish that the stengun which was produced before the Court was really found from the possession of the appellant or that it was discovered by him, the finding that it was found from the possession of the appellant is erroneous. We do not find any substance in this contention because the stengun had a number written on it and it was noted in the seizure memo and it tallied with the number found on the stengun produced in the Court. RDX