with intent by means thereof to endanger life or cause serious injury to property or enable any other person by means thereof, to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property in India. When the evidences have been gone through, the PW-1 the police personnel, PW-2 the arms constable-cum-seizure list witness, PW-3 the Hawaldar-cum-seizure list witness, PW-4 the informant and PW-5 the I.O., they have not substantiated the ingredients of Section 4 by way of stating that such illegal possession was with an intention to explode in order to cause injury to the life or property. On the other hand, the evidence is with regard to possession without license. After all, it is the burden upon the prosecution to substantiate its case. As stated above, save and except possession of explosive substance without license nothing more, at least by way of exploring much more, that the possession was with an ulterior motive to cause explosion in order to harm life and property, should have been. Lacking on that score, did not justify the finding. On the other hand, from the evidence, it is crystal clear that there happens to be no cross-examination at the end of the appellant in order to discredit the factum of recovery of 50 detonators without license and in likewise manner, challenging their status over seizure list. That being so, the recovery is not genuinely controverted.
