JUDGEMENT

Appellants have filed this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 10.09.2014 passed by Session Judge, Sessions Division, Dhar, District-Dhar Sessions Trial No.51/2014, whereby trial Court has convicted the appellant No.1 under Section 435 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo 1 year R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/- and appellant Nos.2, 3 and 4 under Section 435/34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo 1 year R.I. with fine of Rs.1000-1000/-, with default stipulation.

2. As per prosecution story, the complainant resides at village-Himmatgarh, Nayapura and accused Rama and Babu are also having agricultural land adjacent to the land of complainant. On 29.11.2013 at about 11 p.m., accused and complainant quarreled on the issue of bamboo cutting and on the same time the accused started pelting stones at the house of the complainant. Upon shouting, accused set ablaze the grass lying outside of the house. The matter was reported to police and upon receiving information police registered a case and charge-sheet was filed after due investigation against the accused.

3. Trial court framed the charges against the appellants and the appellants denied the charges.

4. After taking the evidence, trial court held the appellants guilty under Section 435 and 435/34 of IPC and sentenced as mentioned above.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, appellant filed this appeal and submitted that incident occurred in dark night and electricity was shut down in spite of that the trial court has committed error in convicting the appellants as aforesaid. It has come on record that there was previous enmity between the accused and complainant party which shows that there was every possibility of false implication of the appellants in alleged offence. There are so many contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution witness so on these grounds appellants pray that the judgment of the trial court be set aside and they be acquitted from the charges.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.

7. Now, the question arises whether the appeal may be allowed or not.

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record of the case, it is found that PW-1 Rustam has stated that accused Ramu lit fire by matchstick and other accused persons were also present there but, in cross examination in para No.11, PW-1 Rustam has admitted that it is true that when he came outside of his house, he saw that grass was burning and there was hue and cry for extinguishing the fire. After perusal of the cross examination of PW- 1 it is evident that PW-1 came out side of the house and he only saw that grass was burning but he could not see as to who had set fire on the grass. PW-2 Guddu also stated in cross examination that it is true that when he got up he saw the grass was burning. PW-4 Kankubai also stated in her cross examination that when she came out side of the house, fire had already taken place.

9. After perusal of cross-examination of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4, it is found that they did not see as to who had set fire on the grass. Hence, on these evidence, trial court has committed error in convicting the appellants. In view of the aforesaid, the judgment passed by the trial court is set aside and appellants are acquitted from all the charges. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged.

10. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned court for compliance. The present appeal is allowed. Let the record of the trial court be sent back (HIRDESH) JUDGE N.R. Signature Not Verified Signed by: NARENDRA KUMAR RAIPURIA Signing time: 13-04-2024 20:26:01