Point of Law – Acquittal - In case of Sections 300 and 436 of IPC, evidence of prosecution witnesses are not free from reasonable doubt.

ORDER :

This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.07.2000 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur, in S.T. No.39/93 while acquitting the accused/appellant under Section 506-B IPC, convicted under Section 436 IPC & sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three years with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo S.I. for one year.

2. Case of the prosecution is that on 20.11.1992 at 6.30 am, a dehati nalishi (Ex.P/3) was recorded at the instance of complainant Dhansai (PW/3) wherein he alleged that accused/appellant along with Puniram Sahu and Chhedu Ram Sahu set his house as well as sawmill on fire on account of family property dispute and also threatened him to kill. On the basis of aforesaid allegation, offence under Section 436 and 506-B/34 of IPC was registered. Based on this dehati nalishi, FIR (Ex.P-13-A) was registered on the same day at about 12.45 pm under the aforesaid sections against the present appellant and other accused persons namely Puniram Sahu and Chhedu Ram Sahu. Semi-burnt teak wood, coal ash, two doors, semi-burnt window total amounting to Rs.23,000/-, and other articles of sawmill were seized vide Ex.P/1. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/6. Khasra Panchshala (P.-II) was seized vide Ex.P/7. One bamboo stick and axe (tangia) were seized at the instance of appellant Dhani Ram. Axe (tangia) was seized at the instance of accused Puniram Ram vide Ex.P/12. Nazri Naksha was prepared vide Ex.P/13. Photo copy of register of sawmill of complainant Dhansai (PW/3) was seized vide Ex.P/14.

3. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant and other accused persons under Sections 436 and 506-B/34 IPC and charges under Sections 436 and 506-B were framed against him (appellant), whereas charge under Section 436 IPC was framed against other accused persons by the trial Court.

4. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Three defence witnesses were also examined to substantiate its case and produced documents Ex.D-1 to D-3. Statements of the appellant and other accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

5. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record while acquitting the appellant from Section 506-B IPC and another accused Chhediram from Section 436, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

6. Learned Sr. Advocate for the appellant submits that the appellant and complainant Dhansai (PW/3) are the brothers. A civil dispute is pending between them regarding ancestral property and to evict the present appellant from the ancestral property he has been falsely roped in the case. He further submits that the prosecution was launched for making pressure on the appellant to surrender before the complainant Dhansai (PW/3) in partition suit which was filed by the complainant. He also submits that the learned trial Court utterly failed to prove the fact that the premises which alleged to have been set on fire was not only in possession of the complainant but also in the possession of the appellant as is evident from the evidence of Raj Kumar (PW/10), son of complainant Dhan Sai. It is also submitted that the learned trial Court convicted the appellant because he was Minister and influential person who could have managed for withdrawal of the case, but the fact is that he left the politics way back in the year 1980 and never contested election since then. It is also contended that in this case, most of the prosecution witnesses including the complainant himself turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution and this fact was completely ignored by the trial Court while convicting th