Back
1966 Supreme(Goa) 23
GOA, DAMAN AND DIU J.C's COURT
V. S. JETLEY, J. C. AND R. S. BINDRA, A.J.C.
Vithoba Campro Mangueshkar - Appellant
v.
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 184 of 1965
Decided on: 29-7-1966
A. P. Da Costa, for Appellant;
S. Tamba, Govt. Pleader, for Respondent.
In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt as to the guilt of the accused, the accused must be acquitted.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MISCHIEF BY FIRE - SECTION 427 READ WITH SECTION 436 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - CONVICTION SET ASIDE - DOUBTFUL IDENTIFICATION OF THE ACCUSED - BENEFIT OF DOUBT GIVEN TO THE ACCUSED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 427 read with Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code for setting fire to the hut of the complainant. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had a history of bad relations with the complainant and her family, and that he had set fire to the hut as an act of revenge. The appellant denied the allegations and claimed that he was ill at the time of the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case was not convincing. The complainant and her sister, who were the main witnesses, had testified that they saw the appellant running away from the hut after setting it on fire. However, the court noted that the incident occurred at night and that the witnesses may have been mistaken in their identification of the appellant. The court also noted that the appellant's family members did not come to help extinguish the fire, which was unusual if the appellant was indeed the culprit.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had set fire to the hut of the complainant. 2. Whether the identification of the appellant by the complainant and her sister was reliable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had set fire to the hut. The court noted that the identification of the appellant by the complainant and her sister was doubtful, and that there was no other evidence to establish the appellant's guilt. The court also noted that the appellant had an alibi, which was supported by the testimony of his witnesses.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
V. S. JETLEY, J.C. : The appellant Vithoba Campro Mangueshkar was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 427 read with Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to four months' imprisonment, and a fine of Rs.200 or, in default, two months' rigorous imprisonment. The learned Sessions Judge also directed that out of the fine recovered. Rs.150 be paid as compensation to the complainant Mogru Gopal Gaudo, her sister Pissolem and her mother, for the loss suffered by them. The appellant felt aggrieved by this sentence and hence the present appeal.
2. The prosecution case has been stated at fair length in the order of the learned Sessions Judge. We shall broadly refer to it and then discuss the material evidence disregarding minor discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. The complainant Mogru Gopal Gaudo, her sister Pissolem and her mother Avadu were not on good terms with appellant Vithoba. They were all living near the temple of Manguesh. The house of the appellant was at a distance of about 300 ft. from the hut of the complainant. The cause for bad relations is what happened during the four incidents before the hut of the complainant was destroyed by fire on the 1st December, 1964, at about 10.30 p. m. The first incident is stated to have taken place about eight months before the hut was burnt. The background of this incident is that the complainant's sister, Pissolem, on enquiry from the wife of the appellant, informed her that the Rao family at Panjim was in need of a domestic servant and that she may approach that family for employment. The name of the wife of the appellant is Shrimati. She left her village for Panjim in order to seek employment. The appellant came to know of this incident and he reprimanded the complainant's sister Pissolem. The second incident occurred about a week before the hut was burnt.
The background of this incident is that Kopu, the mother-in-law of the appellant, was made to vacate the house owned by Surendra. The reason for vacating it was that she had kept it in an untidy condition. Surendra then asked Pissolem to clean the house. This infuriated Kopu and Shrimati, wife of the appellant. They suspected that Pissolem had instigated Surendra to evict Kopu. The third incident occurred a day before the fire. The complainant had kept her sari for drying and after some time she noticed that her sari had been torn to pieces. The complainant suspected that the appellant had torn it to pieces. The fourth incident took place on the day the hut was burnt. The background of this incident is that the complainant and Pissolem were passing by the house of the appellant when they heard Kopu addressing Shanti in the following words:- 'tumcho vondo borot aila choduch lacdam zomoia': (your Doomsday is near, have more fear). The complainant and Pissolem thought that this threat was really intended for them and not for Shanti, their neighbour.
3. The complainant and Pissolem then returned to their hut. It was at about 8.00 p. m. when they went to sleep. The complainant was 'half asleep' when at about 10 p. m. she heard some noise. She thought it was caused by a cat moving on the roof. A few minutes thereafter she noticed the hut on fire. She woke up Pissolem and her mother Avadu and, on leaving the hut, the complainant and Pissolem saw the appellant running away. They cried for help when about 15 neighbours collected and extinguished the fire. The complainant did not lodge report until 3.45 p. m. next day when the Police came to know that the hut had been destroyed by fire. The statement of the complainant was then recorded and after necessary investigation the appellant was challaned and later committed to the Court of Sessions for answering a charge under Section 427 read with Section 436 of the Penal Code. The offence under Section 436 consists of committing mischief by fire, intending to cause or knowing it to be likely that an accused person will thereby cause
