LAWS(MPH)-2001-12-2

JAGANNATH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Decided On December 14, 2001
JAGANNATH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed by the appellant against the judgment dated 18-2-1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barwaha (West Nimar), convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under Section 436, of the Indian Penal Code to R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine further RI for six months.

(2.) The prosecution case in nut shell is that on 23-4-1992 in the noon, a dispute of partition had taken place between the appellant Jagannath and his father Bhuwaniram and brother Rameshwar as well. It is alleged by the prosecution that during that dispute the appellant issued threat for ablazing the house. On the same day in the noon at about 2.30 p.m. one part of the house in which Bhuwaniram along with his son Rameshwar and the present appellant were residing started burning and the appellant was seen going with a tin container (Kansara). This was witnessed by PW 1 Chunnilal and PW 2 Bhaiyala the cousin brothers of the appellant, who were residing adjacent to the house of Bhuwaniram. In the alleged incident, a part of the house of these witnesses was also damaged.

(3.) On the date of the incident i.e. 23-4-1992 nobody had reported the matter in the police station but as per the First Information Report (Ex. P17) proved by PW 7 in the Investigating Officer SubInspector pajanan posted at Police Chowki Bediya, Police Station Sanawad, who after gathering the knowledge about the incident of arson at the house of Bhuwaniram in Village Bulgaon reached over there and saw that the villagers were extinguishing the fire. Thereafter, he started investigation right from 23-4-1992 and on 27-4-1992 he was given information by the witnesses PW1 Chunnilal and PW2 Bhaiyalal that before half or an hour of the burning of the house they overheard the quarrel between the appellant and his father Bhuwaniram and after some time the appellant entered inside the house with a tin container through the courtyard. The appellant remained inside the house for some time again came out with his son Dinesh having a box (peti) with them. He locked the house from outside and went away from that place. Only thereafter, they had seen the fire in the house.