HAUSILA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two real sibling brothers Hausila Prasad and Rampher, both sons of Sripat, resident of Bahaudeenpur, P.S. Machlishahar, district Jaunpur, have questioned their conviction u/s 436 IPC and imposed sentence of two years RI with fine of Rs.1000/- therefor on each of them, with default sentence being six months further R.I, and also awarding Rs. 1000/= as compensation to the victim complainant Ramraji, recorded by IInd Additional Session's Judge, Jaunpur, in S.T. No.47 of 1980, State Vs. Hausila Prasad and another.

(2.) Described briefly, complainant's allegations were that her house is adjacent to the house of Ram Shiromani, her brother-in-law (devar). Adjacent to their houses was a residential thatch in which complainant's and her devar's children resided. There was animosity between complainant and the accused appellants, because of which, a day earlier to the present incident, on 17.12.1978, devar Ram Shiromani and his son Krishna Kumar were framed-in a false case and were got arrested and by the time, present incident occurred they could not get bail. On the date of the incident, 18.12.1978 at 5 p.m., both the appellants came at complainant's thatch vetuparising her, which had attracted Sewak, Ram Jiyawan and many other co-villagers at the scene. Initially complainant inhibited hurled abusive words but later exacerbating their scurrilous act, appellants torched her thatch by their matchsticks, gutting it and another adjacent hutment, completely, alongwith the articles, a bed and a sari, kept in it. Villagers doused the fire because of which adjacent another residential abode of the complainant was saved from being gutted. Adya Prasad, husband of the complainant resides away from the house, in connection with his vocation and hence, during the incident, no male member was present at complainant's house. Because of ensuing night complainant could not proceed to the police station and consequently, following day morning (19.12.1978), she went to the police station but head moharir refused to take down her FIR because of the influence of the accused persons and being in hands and gloves with them. On the same day an application was moved by the complainant before Superintendent of Police, vide Ext. Ka-1, but with no result. Since police did not impart justice to the complainant that she lodged complaint before Special Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, on 20.12.1978, Ext. Ka-2, against the malefactors annexing registry receipt, Ext. Ka-3, of the application sent by her to the Superintendent of Police. Four to Six days after the incident, her devar called a photographer, who had photographed the burnt thatch by preparing it's negative and photos,material Ext. Ka-1 and 2.

(3.) With aforesaid allegations, complaint of complainant Ram Raji, Annexure No.2, was registered as Complaint Case No.576 of 1978, Ramraji Vs. Hausila Prasad and another, on 20.12.78. Same day her statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was recorded. On the strength of aforesaid complaint and statement, recorded during inquiry, accused persons were summoned to stand trial for committing crime under Section 436 IPC. Since that offence was Session's triable, hence case of accused appellants was committed to the court of Session's where it was registered as S.T. No.47 of 1980, State versus Hausila Prasad and another. Both the appellants were charged under Section 436 IPC, which charges were denied by them and they claimed to be tried and consequently, to establish their guilt, their prosecution commenced.