AREEKKATTU MOIDU HAJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner now stands convicted for an offence under S.4351. P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Crl. R.C. No. 88 of 1992 is the suo motu revision taken by this Court and notice ordered to the Petitioner to show cause why he should not be ordered to pay compensation to P.W.1, the victim under S.357 Crl. P.C.

(2.) The allegation against the Petitioner is that on 23-4-1957 the petitioner committed mischief by setting fire to the rubber plantation of the defacto complainant. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner who is also an owner of a plantation set fire to the leaves in his plantation and carried the burning dry leaves in his hands and threw them into the plantation of the defacto complainant and as a result of which some rubber trees were destroyed and P.W.1 sustained loss.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. According to the prosecution, the occurrence was witnessed by PWs 2 to 4 and of them P.W. 3 turned hostile. It is the further case of the prosecution that P.W.1 used to visit his plantation once in a week and on the day of the occurrence when he came to the plantation he was informed by the eyewitness that the occurrence had taken place on account of the mischief committed by the petitioner. It is also the case of the prosecution that the first information report . came to be registered only at 6 p.m. on 27.4.1987 i.e. nearly 4 days later. There is no explanation as to why the complainant did not immediately lay a complaint with the police even though he knew about the occurrence on the same day, viz. on 23.4.1987. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner set fire to some dry leaves lying in his own property and a bunch of burning leaves were taken in hand and he deposited in the property of the complainant which was also filled with dry leaves and creepers. It is unbelievable that the petitioner after setting fire to the dry leaves carried the burning leaves in his hand and deposited them in the property of the complainant. Further if the petitioner wanted to set fire to the plantation of the complainant he could have set fire to the dry leaves that were lying in the property of the complainant and it was not necessary for him to set fire to the dry leaves in his plantation of the complainant. It is also brought to my notice that in between the plantations of the complainant and the petitioner there was another estate belonging to one Kunhali consisting of about 30 acres. If the petitioner has to set fire to the estate of the complainant then it is necessary for him to cross the 30 acres to reach the estate of the complainant for the purpose of throwing the dry burning leaves. I am not able to believe the prosecution case.