SHRIPAT RAMNATH SANAP Vs. DILIP BABAN SANAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

(2.) This Criminal Revision Application has been filed by the original complainant who had lodged a complaint with the Police, alleging that the Respondents herein had set their crop at fire and, in the said fire, the entire crop as well as part of the residential house and cattle shed were damaged. After the complaint was filed, investigation was carried out by the Police and, thereafter, charge- sheet was filed against the respondents. The respondents - accused were tried and the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, after appreciating the evidence which was brought on record by the prosecution, held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond the reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the said offence of setting the crop of the complainant at fire and hence acquitted the accused Nos. 1 to 3 of the offence punishable under sections 436, 435 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The State did not prefer appeal against acquittal of the accused. The original complainants, however, preferred this Criminal Revision Application. It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners that the the trial court has failed to take into consideration the evidence of the original complainant and of his father and the finding recorded by the Sessions Court, therefore, is liable to be set aside. He submitted that on this count alone, the judgment and order of the Sessions Court was liable to be set aside and the matter should be remanded for fresh hearing. He further submitted that the finding of delay in recording the FIR, as stated by the Sessions Judge, is incorrect. He submitted that the complainants, initially, had to extinguish the fire and, thereafter, a complaint would be lodged in the Police Station. He submitted that, therefore, the Sessions Court clearly erred in not taking into consideration this vital aspect. He invited my attention to the judgment and order of the Sessions Court and finding recorded by the trial court.