LAKHAN SINGH LODHI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order of sentence dated 8/9/1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, Damoh in ST No.54/1999, whereby the appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 436 of IPC and sentenced for five years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, six months additional RI was directed.

(2.) THE prosecution's case, in short, is that on 8.3.1999 the complainant R.P.Tripathi (PW-1), a teacher in Higher Secondary School Hatta was not present in his house situated at Village Sunwaha (Police Station Batiyagarh District Damoh), but his wife Munni Bai (PW-2) and mother were sleeping in the house. At about 3:00 AM in the night Munni Bai and her mother-in-law felt that an arson took place in the house, and therefore they went to the upper stories and they saw from the terrace that the appellant was placing some inflammable garbage and wood in front of the house of the complainant and he was the person who set the house on fire. On their shouting the appellant ran away from the spot and some villagers came to the spot and helped Munni Bai and her mother-in-law in extinguishing the fire. Mastram (PW-5) was sent to Hatta to intimate the complainant about the incident and thereafter the complainant came to his village Sunwaha and submitted a written report Ex.P-1 before the SHO Batiyagarh District Damoh. THE police recorded the FIR Ex.P-3 on the basis of that written report. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the JMFC Hatta, who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Damoh.

(3.) THE amicus curie has submitted that except the witness Munni Bai, there was nobody who came to implicate the appellant into the matter. THE FIR was lodged with a delay of 14 hours and no reason was mentioned for that delay. If the witness Munni Bai saw the appellant when fire was initiated, then there was no problem to the complainant to lodge the FIR within time. Under such circumstances, it appears that Munni Bai gave the name of the appellant on the basis of suspicion only. If any doubt is created, then benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused. Under such circumstances, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 436 of IPC. In the alternate, it is submitted that the appellant has faced the trial and appeal for last 13 years. He was the youth of 25 years at the time of incident and he was the first offender, and therefore he may not be sent to the jail again.