Back
1996 Supreme(Raj) 526
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : D.C. Dalela, Amaresh Kunwar Singh
State of Rajasthan - Appellant
Versus
Vishan Singh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 1979
Decided On : 09/04/1996
D.R. Bobra, Public Prosecutor, for the Appellant
B.L. Bishnoi, Virendra Choudhary, for the Respondents
The court held that the evidence of Jogaram PW. 5 and Lachha PW. 9 was not reliable and that there was no error in the trial court's decision to acquit the respondent.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - IPC SECTIONS 435, 436 - ACQUITTAL - EVIDENCE - RELIABILITY - WITNESSES - TESTIMONY - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - MOTIVE - DISPUTED FIELD - FALSE IMPLICATION - COURT ANALYSIS - FINDING OF FACT - NO ERROR IN ACQUITTAL.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was charged with setting fire to a hut under Sections 435 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution relied on the testimony of three witnesses, Jogaram PW. 5, Lachha PW. 9, and Sardarsingh PW. 4, to prove the charges against the respondent. The respondent denied the charges and did not produce any evidence in his defense.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of Jogaram PW. 5 and Lachha PW. 9 was not reliable. The court noted that Lachha PW. 9 was an old man who was sleeping inside the hut at the time of the alleged incident and that it was inconceivable that the respondent would have continued to stand there till Lachha PW. 9 came out of the hut. The court also found that Jogaram PW. 5's story was not natural and that his presence at the scene of the occurrence at midnight was open to great doubt. The court further noted that there was a dispute between Lachha PW. 9 and the respondent over the field in which the hut was standing and that it was possible that the respondent had been falsely implicated.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of Jogaram PW. 5 and Lachha PW. 9 was reliable. 2. Whether the respondent had a motive to set fire to the hut.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence of Jogaram PW. 5 and Lachha PW. 9 was not reliable and that there was no error in the trial court's decision to acquit the respondent. The court noted that Lachha PW. 9 was an old man who was sleeping inside the hut at the time of the alleged incident and that it was inconceivable that the respondent would have continued to stand there till Lachha PW. 9 came out of the hut. The court also found that Jogaram PW. 5's story was not natural and that his presence at the scene of the occurrence at midnight was open to great doubt. The court further noted that there was a dispute between Lachha PW. 9 and the respondent over the field in which the hut was standing and that it was possible that the respondent had been falsely implicated.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's order of acquittal.
Amaresh Kunwar Singh, J.-Heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.
2. Therespondent-Vishan Singh was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra on charges under Sections 435 and 436, IPC After trial the respondent was acquitted. The State has filed this appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra.
3. A first information report was lodged by Sona Ram at the Police Station, Samdari District Barmer on 19-1-1978 at 3.15 PM According to the first information report Lachharam and his family used to live in a hut which was constructed in the field which is alleged to be in possession of Lachharam. On the night intervening 16th and 17th January, 1978 one Jogla alias Jogaram son of Bhagwanaram Bheel was sleeping outside the hut, Lachharam and the members of his family were sleeping inside the hut. At about midnight when Jogla woke up and went towards rear side of the hut to ease himself he saw one man going towards rear side of the hut. At that time Jogla saw that the man he has seen going towards the hut, set fire to the hut and in the light of fire he recognised him as Vishan Singh. Thereafter Jogla raised an alarm and cried aloud to the effect that the hut of Lachharam was set to fire by Vishan Singh Rajput. One Sardar Singh rushed towards the place of occurrence on hearing the alarm raised by Jogla and at that time Vishan Singh fled away from the scene of occurrence. Jogla and others saved the lives of Lachharam and the members of his family by fetching them outside the burning hut. However, the goods and some cash which was placed in the hut were destroyed by fire. On the next morning the matter was reported to some villagers who came to the place of occurrence. On the basis of the report lodged by Sonaram the police registered a case under Sections 435 and 436, IPC and after usual investigation submitted a report under Section 173, CrPC, in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Balotra who committed the case to the Court of Session where the accused respondent was tried for the charges under Sections 435 and 436, IPC and the trial resulted in acquittal.
4. During the trial, the prosecution examined Jora Bharti, PW. 1, Sona PW. 2, Sona PW. 3, Sardarsingh PW. 4 Jogaram PW. 5, Ghewaria PW. 6, Sona PW. 7, Bhuraram PW. 8, Lachha PW. 9 and Bherdan PW. 10. The accused was examined under Section 313, CrPC He did not produce any evidence in his defence.
5. The evidence on which the prosecution relied on for proving the charge against the accused consists of oral evidence of Jogla alias Jogaram PW. 5, Lachha PW. 9 and Sardarsingh PW. 4. The prosecution case is that at midnight Jogaram PW. 5 went to ease himself , he saw one man going towards rear side of the hut and setting fire to the hut and the light produced by the flames he recognised that man as Vishan Singh and Vishan Singh continues to stand there till Sardarsingh PW. 4 arrived at the scene of occurrence on hearing the alaram raised by Jogaram PW. 5. Lachha PW. 9 has during his statement in the Court stated that when Jogaram told that the fire had been set by Vishan Singh, he saw towards Vishan Singh and recognised him. Sardar Singh PW. 4 has deposed that on hearing the alarm and on seeing the flames he rushed towards the field of Lachha and saw that the hut of Lachha was burning and Lachha, Lachha’s children, Jogla Bheel and Ghewaria were present there and they were frying to bring the house-hold goods from inside the hut and at that time Joga stated that Vishan Singh had set fire to the hut. Sardar Singh had not supported the prosecution version that the accused Vishan Singh, retired from the scene of occurrence after the arrival of Sardarsingh. In other words, Sardarsingh had not supported the prosecution Version. The learned Sessions Judge carefully considered the evidence of Jogaram PW. 5 and Lachha PW. 9. He came to the conclusion that there was
