CRUZ PEDRO PACHECO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the original accused is directed against the Judgment dated 4th November 1997 passed in Sessions Case No.41/95 by the Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao. The learned Judge acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 506 (II) of the Indian Penal Code but convicted him of the offence punishable under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for one year. The learned Judge further directed that fine, if realized, the same shall be paid to P. W. 2 Joaquim by way of compensation. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the accused has preferred this appeal.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is that the accused and P. W. 2 Joaquim are brothers. P. W. 1 Marcelina is the wife of P. W. 2 Joaquim. According to the prosecution, the relations between the accused and P. W. 2 Joaquim are strained and that the former had on previous occasions given the latter abuses and threats and also assaulted him. However, P. W. Joaquim did not make any complaint against the accused. It appears that on account of strained relations with the accused, P. W. 2 Joaquim and his wife P. W. 1 Marcelina have been residing separately in their own house at Kindlebag, Canacona. The accused, however, resides with his parents in the ancestral house, which is at a distance of about 100 metres from the house of P. W. 2 Joaquim. Adjoining the front portion of the house of P. W. 2 Joaquim, there was a shed, which was thatched with palm leaves. The said shed was being used for keeping certain articles including a scooter.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge charged the accused for the offences under Sections 436 and 506 (II) of the Indian penal Code. THE accused pleaded not guilty. Although in his statement the accused admitted his presence at the relevant time, he denied the charge of having set the shed on fire. According to him, he had gone to the house of his brother P. W. 2 Joaquim to demand the money which he had lent. THE accused did not examine any witness in his defence nor did he examine himself on oath. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses, who included two eye witnesses, namely, P. W. 1 Marcelina and P. W. 4 Datta Pagui. THE learned Judge upon consideration of the evidence on record found the same proved so far as the charge under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code was concerned. He found that the charge for the offence under Section 506 (II) was, however, not proved. In this view of the matter, the learned Judge proceeded to convict and sentence the accused as indicated above.