RAVAJI JESANGJI THAKARDA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Banaskantha at Palanpur dated 2. 4. 2007 in Sessions Case No. 80 of 2006 for offence under section 436 read with section 114 of Indian Penal Code. The State has not filed any appeal against the said judgment and order. The brief facts of the case are as under:

(2.) ON 2. 10. 2005 the present petitioner-original complainant, a resident of Moria, has lodged a complaint with Vadgam police station against respondents No. 2 to 4 for offences punishable under sections 436 read with section 114 of IPC which was registered as CR No. I-44 of 2005. It is alleged that the incident took place on 30. 9. 2005. There was some disputes between the father of the complainant and the accused and the police had arrested father of the complainant. Therefore, on the day of the incident as he was alone in the house, his uncle Pratapji and aunty Revaben slept with him. At about 2 pm, from the cattle shed of Pratapji, they heard bawling/loud cries of cattle and therefore, the complainant and other persons immediately woke and found that the huts of Pratapji was set on fire and they shouted and at that time, he saw accused No. 1 and 2 and other two people running away from the place of the incident. Thereafter, they poured water and put off the fire. It is alleged that damage was caused to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- and therefore, the complaint was lodged before Vadgam police station and offence was registered and offence as aforesaid was registered. During the course of investigation the accused were arrested and charge sheet was submitted in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palanpur.

(3.) AS the offence was sessions triable case, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Palanpur under section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused. The charge was read over to the accused. The accused denied all the charges and pleaded to be tried. Hence the prosecution was asked to prove the guilt against the accused.