KRUSHNA CHANDRA HOTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been convicted under Section 486, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in short, is that a few days before the date of occurrence during the course of a quarrel between the petitioner on the one hand and P.Ws. 1 and 4 on the other, the former had threatened to burn the latter's house. It is alleged that on the morning of 20 -4 -68 when P.W. 1 was absent from home, petitioner pet fire to the roof of the outer bari room of P.W, 1's house. On hearing the hulla raised by P.W. 2, who claims to have witnessed the action of petitioner, people gathered and extinguished the fire, the only damage having occurred being the turning of the roof to the extent of 3 x 2 cubits. On return horns, P.W. 1 being informed about the occurrence proceeded to the P. S. and lodged the F.I.R. After investigation, police submitted a final report, but on a protest petition, the learned Magistrate called upon the police to submit a charge -sheet, and on filing of the game, took cognizance. Petitioner in defence denied the occurrence and his having had taken fart in causing any such fire. An alternative defence of unsoundness of mind of the petitioner was also taken.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner has not pressed the plea of unsoundness of mind which was one of the defences taken in the courts below. He has confined his challenge to the conviction and sentence mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it is contended by him that once a final report after completion of investigation was submitted by the investigating officer, the learned Magistrate bad no jurisdiction to call for a charge -sheet. Therefore, the whole trial is vitiated and on this ground alone, petitioner is entitled to an acquittal. Secondly, it is argued by him that P.W, 2, the only witness on whose evidence prosecution depends to connect the petitioner with the alleged occurrence, is unworthy of credit judged by any standards and the Courts below have committed errors of record, while dealing with his evidence. If his evidence is rejected, it is argued there is nothing else to connect the petitioner with the occurrence. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, contends that whatever illegality might have occurred in calling for a charge -sheet, it is not open to petitioner now to rely on it and challenge the findings of the Courts below based on evidence adduced during trial. Secondly, it is argued that in a revision, it is not open to re -assess or make a re -appraisal of the evidence or consider the credibility or otherwise of any particular witness.