AMARJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard the rival contentions, it is abundantly clear in the evidence and reflected in the judgment of the Trial Court that the accused persons and the informant were in the inimical terms. There was a long persisting litigation between them basing the immovable property and the informant/complainant lost that litigation at the hands of the accused persons in the Court. In this backdrop, the FIR was lodged by Ranjeet Singh with the averments that there was a cattle shed in the courtyard of their house having five cattles. Between 12 to 1 AM in the night of 20.10.1998, he woke up hearing the barking noise of the dogs and noticed that accused persons Amarjeet Singh and Veer Singh were taking to their heels after setting ablazed the thatch of that cattle shed with the result that his all five cattles died. He and his brother Balbeer Singh witnessed the accused persons and identified them. This FIR Ex. Ka -1 culminated into submission of chargesheet for the offences of Section 436, 429 and 506 IPC. Learned Trial Court found both of them guilty for the offences of Section 436 and 429 IPC, while they have been acquitted for the offence of Section 506 IPC. They have been appropriately sentenced for the offences wherefor they have been convicted.

(2.) HAVING heard the rival contentions, it is abundantly clear that the deposition of the informant and his brother and the averments made in the FIR are quite self -contradictory. In the FIR, the accused persons were seen while escaping from the spot in the electric light coming from the nearby Gurudwara, while in their deposition they were identified at the moment when they were litting the fire in the thatch. That apart, at the time of setting fire one accused was seen having the kerosene oil can in his hand and another was seen having kerosene oil bottle in his hand. If both the accused persons have pre -meditated mind to set fire in the thatch of the informant, then it was beyond the prudence of an ordinary man to take kerosene oil can as well as kerosene oil bottle with them. Only one container, either the kerosene oil can or the kerosene oil bottle, would have been enough to accomplish their mischievous purpose.

(3.) FORTIORI , if the accused persons were seen running from the spot having kerosene oil bottle and kerosene oil can in their respective hands, it is again under shadow of suspicion because when their presence was noticed at the time of litting the fire in the thatch and there was huge screams and cries raised by the informant and his brother, then at this sensitive moment, no prudent accused would have carried the burden of taking back the empty kerosene oil bottle or the can while escaping in order to save their own life. If the accused persons entered in the premise of the informant with kerosene oil filled in the can as well as in the bottle in order to achieve their ulterior motive, then the normal course for them would have been to set fire in the thatch from outside and not by entering from the door of the cattle shed and setting the fire in the thatch from inside because in that eventuality they had to sprinkle the kerosene oil to the ceiling of thatch, which was not viable. It is relevant to note that the Investigation Officer has shown the escaping of the accused persons at the instance of the informant as if they came out from inside the cattle shed and then ran away from the spot.