ISHTIAQ AHMED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was convicted under section 436 Indian Penal Code by an order dated 21-4-86 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default of payment of fine the appellant was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. The appellant has made a grievance against the said conviction and sentence.

(2.) Briefly staling the charge against the accused is that on 26th November 1984 at about 5.45 PM the appellant committed mischief by setting on fire a Jhuggi belonging to one Smt. Veer Wati near house No. 27 Sarai Kaley Khan. A report in respect of this incident allegedly was first conveyed to the police control room on telephone by someone wherein no mention about the accused having set the Jhuggi on fire has been made. The only words used in this document Ex. Public Witness 6/A is that somebody was quarrelling after getting drunk. It was this information actually which brought the concerned police officer on the scence of incident where statement of one Rumal Public Witness 4 was recorded who for the first time told the police that the appellant has set Veer Wati's Jhuggi on fire and he together with Sohan Lal Public Witness 5 had seen the appellant committing the offence and apprehended him. It was also disclosed by Public Witness 4 Rumal that after the appellant set the jhuggi on fire they raised cries which attracted their neighbours who helped in extinguishing the fire by sprinkling water.

(3.) At trial Public Witness 4 Rumal and Public Witness 5 Sohan Lal were examined by the prosecution as two star witnesses in respect of the actual incident. Veer Wati, who has been examined Public Witness 3 was not present at the scene of incident at the time of alleged incident but she does state that when she returned at 7 PM she found her Jhuggi having been burnt. Both Public Witness 4 Rumal and PW 5 Sohan Lal have, of course, supported the prosecution case and the trial court came to the conclusion that the suggestion that these two prosecution witnesses were interested in Veer Wati as her relatives was without any basis. This conclusion was arrived at on the ground that none of the witnesses bad specifically been asked as to the nature of relationship, if any, they had with Veer Wati. The trial court disbelieved DW I Attar Singh who had stated that Veer Wati's husband's sister is married to the brother of Rumal and Sohan Lal is the sister's son (Bhanja) of Rumal. Jt is to be kept in mind that this Attar Singh DW I is also a close neighbour of the parties. There is evidence on record that the real dispute between the appellant and Veer Wati was in respect of the new jhuggi which she bad raised or was trying to raise by use of a common wall with the appellant. This aspect of the case has been admitted by Veer Wati Public Witness 3 that the appellant bad an objection to the raising of jhuggi jhopri.