AMIT @ AMIT KUMAR S/O. AMRITLAL BAIRWA, R/O. CHAMBAL SAGAR COLONY, NAGDA Vs. STATE OF M.P., THROUGH P.S. NAGDA, DISTT. UJJAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal of 1996 filed under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. by appellant Amit @ Amit Kumar challenging the judgment dated 20.12.96 passed in Sessions Trial No. 120/96 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khachrod convicting the accused for offence under Section 436 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo 5 years RI and fine of Rs. 5,000/ -, in default of payment of fine the appellant was to undergo an additional sentence of one year's RI. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on the date of the incident i.e. 1.12.95, the complainant Sudhir Kumar filed an FIR Ex.P/1 stating that he was the owner of tent house and was resident of Chambal Sagar Colony, Nagda. At 6 am on the said date when he had gone to relieve himself outside the shop, on coming back he found that accused Amit had entered his shop with plastic can of 5 liters and was pouring kerosene all over his shop.

(2.) When he was coming running into the shop, accused Amit set fire by lighting the match -stick and started running away. The complainant chased him along with the neighbour tailor Battu Jabbar; however, the accused Amit managed to escape along with the empty jery can. By then the shop of the complainant had been ablazed and all efforts to put down the fire were in vain. The corporation had to be called and the fire was put out with the help of the tanker trolley, by then the articles such as blankets, welding chair and tents were already burnt down. His brother had quarreled with one Anil and there had been a quarrel between the members of the Amit's family and his brother Santosh and due to this enmity Amit who was the relative of Anil had set fire to his tent house with kerosene. On registering this complaint the prosecution machinery was set into motion and on completion of the investigation the accused was duly charged and committed to his trial.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that the conviction was contrary to the evidence on record since the statements under Section 161 of the complainant do not substantiate the prosecution case. Moreover Counsel submitted that there was material omission and contradiction in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses which has not been considered by the Trial Court. Counsel also contended that the claim of the accused was highly exaggerated and he has not sustained the damage as alleged. He prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction. In alternate Counsel has prayed that if the Court is satisfied regarding the conviction of the accused for offence under Section 436 of the IPC the custodial sentence be reduced to the period already undergone considering the fact that the appellant was only 17 years of age and a student at the time of incident.