LACHHMAN DASS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a complaint lodged by Lachhman Dass (CW-3) DDR No. 11 dated 17.01.1997 was registered. It is alleged that on 23.12.1996 at about 11.45 p.m. when CW-3 alongwith his family members were sleeping in his residential Chhan (hut) accused persons came there and set the hut on fire. As a result of this, the hut as well as the domestic articles of the complainant were destroyed and he suffered a huge loss. The Panchayat was convened in the village but the dispute could not be settled. It is then that the complainant CW-3 had reported the matter to the police on 17.01.1997 but still no action was taken.

(2.) The petitioner, accordingly, instituted the complaint before the Court. The Court find prima facie case under Section 427, 436 read with Section 34 IPC, summoned 11 accused persons. Since the offence under Section 436 IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was, accordingly, committed to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court, thereafter, heard the parties on charge, out of 11 persons only Baljit and Raj Kumar were charged and rest of the accused named in the complaint were discharged on 11.9.2004. The charge under Sections 427 and 436 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against Baljit and Raj Kumar. They both pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses. Infact Munshi Ram CW-2 is the only witness who could be termed as some what independent as other witnesses were highly interested witnesses and obviously had named large number of persons who were not found involved and were, accordingly, discharged. CW-2 deposed before the Court that 9 years back he had gone to Lachhman Dass for taking his jhota buggi (bullock cart). As per this witness, around midnight hut of Lachhman Dass was set on fire by Baljit. He has stated that household articles lying in the hut were burnt but cattle were taken out. This witness had also deposed that on the next day Panchayat was convened and the decision was taken to erect the hut again. No action was taken against the accused persons by the Panchayat. In one breath this witness has stated that Baljit and Raj Kumar were there but simultaneously deposed that Baljit was not there. This witness belongs to a different village located at 5-6 k.ms. from place of occurrence. The window and door of the hut were closed at the time of incident. During his cross-examination CW-2 conceded that he has not seen Baljit while setting the hut on fire. The proceedings of the Panchayat otherwise were reduced into writing.