BALWANT SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Special Judge, Mandsaur in Special Criminal Case No.73/2002, appellant has preferred this appeal. By the impugned judgment, trial Court found him guilty of offences punishable under sections & 506 -B of the IPC and sentenced him to till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/ -under section IPC and Rs.500/ -under section 506 -B IPC with default stipulation.

(2.) FACTS leading to present appeal are as under. Complainant Amritram lodged a report in police station Bhavgarh, district Mandsaur against the appellant alleging that on 18.04.2002, the appellant set fire to the trees standing on the boundary of the complainant's agricultural field and when he protested, appellant abused him and threatened with serious consequences. According to complainant, the incident was witnessed by Bhagatram (PW/2). On the basis of the said complaint, a criminal case was registered against the appellant for offences punishable under sections , and 506 -B IPC read with section of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). After investigation was over, charge sheet was filed. Appellant denied the charges and claimed that he was falsely implicated, therefore, he was put to trial.

(3.) PERUSAL of record shows that the entire prosecution case hinges upon the evidence of complainant Amritram and his son Bharatram. Prosecution has projected these two persons as eye witnesses. According to Amritram, on the date of incident at about 6 P.M in evening, he had gone to his field and found that the appellant had set fire to dry leaves on the boundary of the agricultural field. It is not in dispute that the agricultural field of the appellant is adjoining to the agricultural field of the complainant which is separated by a boundary (Med/Seda). According to the witnesses, when he remonstrated with the appellant, the appellant dared him to do what he can do. This witness deposed that the incident was witnessed by Bhagatram who was also present in the agricultural field. Bhagatram was examined as PW/2. He has supported the story of his father. According to these witnesses, when the appellant refused to pay any heed to their protest, they went home and did nothing. The matter was reported to the village Choukidar Narsingh (PW/3) next morning, who came to the spot and saw some burned timber but no tree was found burned except that eucalyptus plants only suffered the heat affecting the leaves but no substantial damage was done to the plants. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the matter was not immediately reported to the Police but when the demand of compensation by the complainant was not met, he lodged the report after four days in the police station. No doubt, prosecution tried to explain the delay but in the facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid delay of four days has substantially weakened the prosecution case.