RAMESH NARAYANRAO DEWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant had filed a complaint against the respondent No. 2 under section 435 of the Indian Penal Code for having set fire to the thorny compound wall of the applicant. Respondent No. 2 was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola for offence under section 435 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Respondent No. 2 had filed appeal before the Court of Sessions and the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Akola vide judgment dated 6/12/1997, allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on respondent No. 2. This is how the applicant who was original complainant, has come to this Court in revision against the said order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola.

(2.) LEARNED Advocate for the applicant urged before me that a well considered judgment of the trial Court in which various aspects involved had been examined and finding given thereon has been set at naught by the learned additional Sessions Judge on the basis of surmises and assumptions. He pointed out that the trial Court had rejected the plea of alibi put up by respondent No. 2 since not only the plea of alibi was not established by any cogent evidence, but the said plea of alibi-was not put up to the eye-witnesses. According to him, the trial Court had carefully scrutinised the defence evidence on alibi and for valid and sound reasons, found that the said plea of alibi did not inspire any confidence, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not only not given finding on the plea of alibi, but has even dealt with the plea of alibi on the basis of surmises and assumptions. He, therefore, submits that the order of the Additional Sessions Judge is required to be set aside and the matter be remanded for appreciation afresh in the light of the settled principles of assessment of evidence.

(3.) LEARNED A. P. P. appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1-State fully supports the view of the learned Advocate for the applicant.