KHIM SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. S. Rawat, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment/and order dated 1/-06-1983 passed by Sri T. N. Saxena the then Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in Sessions Trial No. 3 of 1982 State Vs. Khim Singh and another, convicting the appel lant- Khim Singh/ and sentencing him to -undergo 5 years R. I. u/s 436 I. P. C. & 5 years R. I. u/s 30/-LRO. It was further directed that both the sentences would run concurrently, fueling aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the present appeal has been/preferred.

(2.) THE prosecution story, in nutshell, is that the appellant resides in village Talli Kharani and the reporter Tika Ram-PW3 and Nityanand- PW2 also reside in the same village. It was averred in the prosecution case that on 20-01-1981, there was a scuffle in between Khim Singh and Tika Ram the informer in the village Bhingrara. THEreafter the quarrel ended and the parties went to their house. On the next day, i. e. on 21 -01 -1981, the appellant came to the house of Tika Ram- informer and again as saulted to him. This incident took place in the morning hours of 21-01-1981. Nityanand saw this physical grappling in between the reporter- Tika Ram and the appellant-Khim Singh. He himself inter vened in the said grappling. THE appel lant also challenged him and torn his waist coat. THEreafter, some of the vil lagers were called and a panchayat was convened but the appellant did not abide by the decision of the panchayat rather warned to kill and set fire to the house of the complainant. When the matter was not settled in the panchayat, Tika Ram-informer having been fright ened by the conduct of the appellant called Shib Dutt and Tika Ram Panguria to stay in the night in his house. Both of them came to the house of the in former Tika Ram at about 8:00 or 9:00 pm. on 21-01-1981. When both of them reached at the door of the informer-Tika Ram, two persons, namely, Bachay Singh and Jodh Singh of village Talli Kharani came to the house of the in former- Tika Ram and knocked the door of the reporter. THE reporter-Tika Ram did not open the door on account of fear. While knocking the door, Tika Ram Panguria and Shib Datt Pangurai were also in the house of informer. Bachay Singh and Jodh Singh offered them for getting the compromise but they told them that it had become night and the talks of the compromise would be re sumed in the next morning. Both Bachay Singh and Jodh Singh returned to their house. It was the prosecution case that at about 3:00 am. in the morning of intervening night of 21/22-01-1981, PW1 - Shib Datt and Tika Ram- PW3 heard some noises from be hind the house and they came out from their house and saw that the appellant Khim Singh was igniting fire with a match stick at the hay roof of Nityanand- PW2. A hue and cry was made by the residents of the nearby houses and they ran out for safety of the complainant party. None got injury or burn injury but the prosecution had stated that the entire house was burnt and a loss of Rs. 1 lac occurred on ac count of so many articles having been gutted to fire. THE matter was reported to the Patti Patwari on the next day at about 1:00 am. THE distance between the patti patwari headquarter and the place of incident is about 8 kms. as has been shown in the F. I. R. itself. THE patwari started the investigation. Mean while, the application was given by the reporter- Tika Ram to the D. M. on 22-01-1981 stating therein about the inci dent and he also gave some meticulous details about the incident, how it oc curred. THE record also reveals that the reporter- Tika Ram, informer had also given the complaint to the D. M. again on 05-02-1981 alleging therein that Patwari is not taking interest in the in vestigation. On the other hand, the Patwari investigated the matter and sub mitted the chargesheet against the ap pellant and one Lal Singh.

(3.) THE appellant was examined u/s 313 Cr. P. C. and he had denied the en tire prosecution evidence and he had stated that he had been falsely impli cated on account of the enmity. But at one place he had submitted that some heated exchange took place between-the appellant and the Nityanand- PW2. No oral and documentary evidence has been filed in support of the defence.