UMESH CHARAN GOSAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. S. Rawat, J. This is a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 10. 2. 2004 passed by the then Addl. Sessions Judge/fast Track Court, Tehri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 7 of 1996, State v. Umesh Charan Gusain, whereby the Addl. Sessions Judge has convicted the ap pellant under section 436, I. P. C. and sen tenced him to undergo RI for three years and to pay fine of rupees ten thousand. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo RI for three months.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 3. 10. 1994 at about 14. 15 p. m. the Uttarakhand Sangharsh Samiti agitators tried to burn the unoccupied resi dential house of the District Judge, Old Tehri. It is also pertinent to mention here that the District Judge was not residing in the said house, since he had shifted to his new residence at New Tehri. When the S. D. M. came to know of the above incident, he immediately reached at the residence and made arrangements to extinguish the fire. THE said information was given to the po lice station Tehri and a report was also lodged. Again on 4. 10. 1994, the agitators came at the unoccupied residential house of the District Judge, Old Tehri and set the house on fire. A report to this effect was also lodged by S. D. M. on phone to the po lice station. THE prosecution case further reflects from the evidence that the accused-appellant along with other persons came to the Court room of the District Judge, New Tehri on 27. 9. 1994, when the District Judge, New Tehri was hearing a civil case bearing No. LA 2 of 1988, Sliashi Bhusan v. State. During the course of the proceeding, the accused-appellant appeared before the District Judge and stated that he is the president of the Students' Union. THE ac cused-appellant requested the District Judge to handover his old residence situ ated at Old Tehri to the students. THE learned District Judge unequivocally stated that the property belongs to the High Court, hence shown his inability to provide the same to the students. THE accused-appellant alongwith the another compan ions came out of the Court-room and stated in an intimidated manner that if the resi dence is not provided to them, they will see other methods to get the same. THE prose cution has further alleged that on 4. 10. 1994, constables Suresh Chand PW8 and Ombir Singh PW 10 were on the security duty at the residence of the District Judge, Old Te hri. At about 12 noon, they saw that a pro cession of about 150 persons were coming from the side of the Ghantaghar to the un occupied residence of the District Judge, situated at Old Tehri. THE said procession was being headed by its leader Umesh Charan Gusain, the present appellant. THE persons who were in the procession, have bottles, canes and 'mashals' in their hands. THEy reached near the unoccupied resi dence of the District Judge, Old Tehri shouting slogans that if the said residence could not be provided to the students, then the District Judge would also not be al lowed to retain this house. THE eye witnesses Suresh Chand PW8 and Ombir Singh PW 10 tried to intervene but the per sons who were in the procession, started pelting stones upon them. Consequently, the eye-witnesses left the spot and the mis creants set the Bungalow/residence on fire by throwing bottles filled with some liquids and 'mashalas'. THE eye-witnesses con stables Suresh Chand PW8 and Ombir Singh PW 10 immediately went to the house of the S. D. M. which is situated nearby the place of the unoccupied resi dence of the District Judge, but the S. D. M. had gone at the post office at that time. THEreafter, both the eye- witnesses went to the post office and narrated the entire inci dent to the S. D. M. THE S. D. M. lodged a report in regard to the above incident on telephone in the police station at about 14. 15 p. m. on the same day. THE matter was initially investigated by the regular police and a charge-sheet was submitted by the police against thirteen persons, including the present appellant.

(3.) THE accused-appellant was ex amined under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He denied all the averments made in the evidence and he has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. He has also stated that neither he had gone to the house of the District Judge nor he set the fire to the house of the Dis trict Judge, He further stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case, as he was a student leader at that time. THE ac cused-appellant did not adduce any evi dence either oral or documentary in sup port of this case.