RAMA HANRNANTU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for revision againt the appellate judgment delivered by the Sessions Judge, Nanded, dismissing the Cheif Judicial Magistrate Nanded, convicting him under Section 435 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 2 month and to pay a fine of Rs, 1000, in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. The complainant Ganpat and the applicant owned adjacent lands at village Hajapur, Taluka and district Nanded, In the harvesting season of 1974-75, Ganpat had reaped jowar crop and severed thee ars of crop and kept them on threshing ground. The Kadaba wag also stacked round about the threshing ground. On 10th January 1975 sometime between 6 to 8 a.m. while Ganpat was sitting near the threshing floor, he saw the accused approaching the heap of Kadaba and igniting it by match-stick, When noticed by Ganpat, the accused took to his heels, People collected and tried to extinguise the fire. The kadaba was reducsd to ashes. Ganpat went to Mudkhed Police Station and lodged a report, Head Constable Sakharam came to the spot and carried on the investigation and ,. after completing the investigation, he charge sheeted the accused,

(2.) The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Most of the prosecution witnessess turned hostile. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded, accepted the testimony ot Ganpat and the Head constable Sakharam and held that it was the applicant who had set kadaba on fire, He, therefore, found him guilty under Section 435 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000, and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous improsonment for one month,

(3.) The applicant, thereafter, filed an appeal which was heard by the Sessions Judge, Nanded, who after going through the record of the case, observed, that there was no reason why the testimony of Ganpat should not be accepted. He observed that Ganpat has every reason to be present at the spot. He had made a report soon there after. He therefore, affirmed the conviction and the sentence imposed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and dismissed the appeal It is against this judgment that the present application for revision has been filed,