SANTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been filed against judgment and order dated 12.10.1998 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.11, Faizabad in Session Trial No. 138 of 1998 State versus Santosh Kumar whereby appellant-accused Santosh Kumar Shukla was found guilty under Section 436 IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default of payment of fine, he have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal is that the complainant Brij Mohan resident of village Kichhuti, P.S. Tarun, District Faizabad runs a cycle shop in a hut on the cross-road of the village and resides in the same hut. On 12.2.1997, appellant approached to the complainant and demanded certain financial contribution for 'Basant' fair for which the complainant denied and the appellant threatened to face dire consequences. On 13.2.1997 at about 4.30 'O' Clock the appellant set the hut of complainant on fire and when the complainant saw the hut ablazing, he raised alarm, on which Om Prakash, Ram Sanjeewan and Ram Lakhan reached on the spot and saw the accused. By this act of the appellant, the neighbouring huts of some persons also caught fire. The complainant Brij Mohan lodged a first information report in police station Tarun and the case was registered against the accused-appellant and after investigation, a charge sheet was submitted under Section 436 IPC. Since the case was triable by court of session, thus learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after taking cognizance of the offence committed the case to the court of session where the charge under Section 436 IPC was framed for which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove the prosecution case, prosecution has examined PW-1 Brij Mohan, PW-2 Om Prakash, PW-3 Sanjeewan and PW-4 Mohd.Shamshad Khan SI. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant had stated that once he went to the cycle shop of the complainant for repairs of his cycle where some exchange of words took place and influenced by the incident, he had been falsely implicated in this case. After hearing the learned counsel for appellant and State, the court below vide order impugned found the appellant guilty under Section 436 IPC and punished him, as above.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order, by filing present appeal, the learned counsel for appellant had submitted that the F.I.R. is delayed and witnesses have not stated the true facts of mode and manner of setting fire to the hut. It has further been submitted that there are contradictions in the statement of witnesses and the theory of demand of contribution for 'Basant' fair has not been specifically proved by the prosecution witnesses.