VIDYA SAGAR Vs. STATE OF H.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, dated 16.11.1999, vide which the appellant was held guilty and sentenced as under:-

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that on 26.6.1995 at 8.45 AM, a report was lodged with the police by one Bakshi Ram that on the night intervening 24/25.6.1995, he was sleeping in his house and heard some noise. He got up and found that his cowshed was set on fire. He raised an alarm and his son Prem Lal, other family members and his neighbourers reached the spot and controlled the fire. He alleged that a dispute was going on with Vidya Sagar, present appellant also referred to as the accused who had given him threat 2/5 days earlier that he will see him and therefore, he had a suspicion that his cowshed was set on fire by the accused. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate who committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge who tried the appellant under Sections 436 and 201 read with Section 511 I.P.C. On conclusion of the trial, the appellant was held guilty and convicted and sentenced as detailed above.

(3.) THE submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant were that there has been a delay in lodging of FIR which has not been explained by the complainant. It was also submitted that there is no direct evidence led as against the appellant, but the learned trial Court had observed that there were six circumstances and coupled together they point out to the guilt of the appellant which findings are not based upon correct appreciation of the evidence and law. He pointed out to some infirmities and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses which shall be referred below. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant were that there is no legal evidence as against the appellant and the learned trial Court had come to a wrong conclusion in holding the appellant guilty and those findings are liable to be reversed. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State had supported the impugned judgment for the reasons recorded by the learned trial Court.