JUDGEMENT

Appellants have preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C., 1973 challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.11.2000 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in S.T.No.54/1995 whereby appellants have been convicted under Section 436 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo RI For 1 year with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.

2. Briefly, the prosecution story is that complainant Ramji Kumar Sharma lodged a written report Ex.P/8 to the effect that on 04.06.1994 at about 6.00 pm in the evening, appellants assaulted complainant’s nephew and when complainant reached there and made a hue and cry, they have also assaulted the complainant with sticks and filthily abused and threatened to kill the complainant. Thereafter, accused persons set ablaze complainant’s house. Complainant had filed a written report Ex.P/8 and FIR Ex.P/9, was registered under sections 323, 341, 294 506 and 436 of the IPC against the accused persons.

3. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 436 and 323 of the IPC against accused persons and they abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. After completion of prosecution evidence, appellants /accused persons were examined under Section 313 of CrPC and therein they have denied the prosecution story and stated that on account of some property dispute, they have been falsely implicated in the case.

5. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 29.11.2000 acquitted the appellants/ accused persons from the offence under Sections 323 of the IPC on the ground that the parties have compromised the matter but convicted the appellant accused persons under Section 436 of the IPC as above.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent State and perused the record of the case.

7. So far as conviction of appellants under Section 436 of the IPC is concerned, perusal of deposition of Ramji Sharma (PW-6) reveals that he has clearly stated that on alleged date, time and place appellants- accused persons Ajay, Umesh, Ramesh and Sugreev set on fire his house.

Perusal of depositions of prosecution witnesses Valmik, Meera Bai, Goluva and Balkishan etc. reveal that they have also supported the prosecution witness Ramji Kumar Sharma.

8. Perusal of depositions of all the above prosecution witness reveals that they have been extensively cross-examined on behalf of appellants but nothing has come out in their cross-examination so as to discredit the depositions of above prosecution witness. There is nothing in their depositions to make their testimonies unreliable. Further, depositions of above prosecution witnesses stands corroborated from report Ex.P/8 and FIR Ex.P/9 which has been lodged immediately after the incident. It is notable that Ramji Sharma and Balkishan are injured witnesses and it is well established that injured witness should be relied upon unless there is something which render their testimony wholly unreliable or creates doubt.

9. It is also evident from MLC Ex.P/6 and Ex.P/7 and deposition of doctor Prakash Singh Parihar that when Ramji and Balkishan were brought before him, he found injuries on the person of Ramji and Balkishan as mentioned in MLC Ex.P/6 and P/7. Thus, FIR and MLC report also corroborates the depositions of Ramji and Balkishan.

10. It is correct that accused has examined Vijay Kumar Pandey, Balkishan Shukla and Ramji Sharma as defence witness but they have also admitted that on the alleged date, time and place, complainant’s house got burnt on account of fire and they have also admitted that the house was old and nobody reside therein but they have not explained if accused did not set the complainant’s house on fire, thus, how did it caught fire. Therefore, from depositions of above defence witnesses, it cannot be said that appellants did not set complainant’s house on fire.

11. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned trial Court has rightly concluded that prosecution has succeeded in pro