LAWS(J&K)-2020-8-45

SOM DUTT Vs. STATE OF J&K

Decided On August 25, 2020
SOM DUTT Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JANDK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the appellants have questioned the judgment dated 04.02.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajouri, whereby the appellants have been convicted under section 435 RPC and sentenced for a simple imprisonment of six months and also a fine of Rs. 1000/- has been imposed on each of the appellant.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are that on 29.05.2006 at 16:00 hours, a written complaint was lodged by the complainant, namely, Parshotam Lal S/o. Sh. Sita Ram R/o Lower Danga (Sair), Tehsil, Kalakote. The said complaint reproduced as under:

(3.) Pursuant to the said complaint, FIR bearing No. 27/2006 for commission of offence 435 RPC was registered by Police Station, Kalakote against the four accused including the appellants. After the investigation of the case, the challan for commission of offences under sections 435 and 427 RPC was produced against the appellants only and the involvement of others accused was not found in the commission of aforesaid offences. During the investigation it was found that the Survey No. 567, belongs to appellant No. 1 and one Karnail Singh, whereas the land comprising Survey No. 625 is owned by the State but has been recorded in possession of the complainant for the last many others. It was further stated that the appellants cut the wheat crop from the Survey No. 567 on 22.05.2006 and on 25.05.2006 at about 5.00 PM they put it on fire causing a wrongful loss of Rs. 1500/- to the complainant. The charge for commission of offences under sections 435 and 427 RPC was framed by the trial court on 03.11.2006 and the prosecution was directed to lead evidence. The prosecution has produced witnesses, namely, 1. PW Parshotam Lal, 2. PW Krishan Lal, 3. PW Jeet Singh, 4.PW Jet Raj, 5.PW Amar Singh, 6. PW Maqbool Hussain, 7. PW Rattan Lal Patwari and 8. Shabir Ahmed Kohli, Investigating Officer. Besides examination of the witnesses, the prosecution has also proved and relied upon the following documentary evidence: