JAMUNA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. A. Rahim, J. This revision has been directed against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge Economic Offen ces), Jhansi dated 6-2-1984 in Criminal Ap peal No. 134 of 1983. By that judgment he dismissed the appeal preferred by the ac cused-appellant against his conviction and sentence passed by the learned V Munsif Magistrate, Jhansi convicting the appellant under Section 435, I. P. C and sentenced him to R. I. for two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/ -.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that in be tween the night of 18/19-3-1983 at about 1. 00am. when the complainant was sleep ing at his Khalihan accused Jamuna went there and set fire in the harvested crop which was stored in the khalihan. When the flame and smoke were emitting the com plainant woke and saw accused running away after setting fire in the harvested crop. He raised alarm whereby Prabhu (P. W. 2) and Hari who were also sleeping in the near by Khalihan followed by some other persons came there and saw the accused running away. He was chased by the complainant and the witnesses but he threatened to kill and escaped. THE fire was brought to control but by that time 12 cart load of harvested crops burnt to ashes whereby 60 maunds of wheat were damaged. THE complainant became puzzled and on the next day at about 4. 45 p. m. he lodged a first information report. During trial, to prove the occurrence, the prosecution has examined the complainant as P. W. 1 and Prabhu as P. W. 2.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel has submitted that there was no motive for setting fire. The learned lower appellate Court has discussed in details and his finding is that motive is not essential part to commit an offence, because some times motive remains in the heart of the accused and is not disclosed. In cross- ex amination of P W. 1 it was stated by him that about 15 days ago he had a quarrel with accused Jamuna. Since it was elicited in cross-examination made by defence Coun sel it cannot be said that since the said fact did not appear in the first information report it should not be taken into account. Any way motive or no motive the crux of whole thing is whether P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 can be believed. The evidence of P. W. 2 is that the accused ran away after setting fire to the harvested crops of P. W. 1. LEARNED Counsel has submitted that it is in evidence that P. W 1 raised alarm and thereafter P. W. 2 woke up and in that circumstances it would not be possible for P. W. 2 to see if the accused set fire or not. That argument has been ac cepted by the lower Court and found that if it is considered that the accused was fleeing away from the place of the occurrence and threatened not to chase him and if it is found that 14 cart loaded harvested crops of the complainant was put on fire the Court can draw a presumption from that cir cumstances that what P. W. 2 has stated was true and considering his evidence along with the evidence of P. W. 1 it can be said that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.