VIRMA AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are directed against the judgment dated Feb. 10, 1989, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur (Camp Salumber), by which the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced to the accused-appellant Dewa for the offence under Sec. 436 Penal Code and accused-appellants Virma, Laxman and Sangram for the offence under Sec. 436/34 IPC.

(2.) The appellant Dewa was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur (Camp Salumber) for the offences under Sections 436, 342 and 307 Penal Code while accused-appellants Virma, Laxman and Sangram were tried for the offences under Sections 436/34, 342 and 307 IPC. The learned trial Court, after trial, acquitted all the accused-appellants of the offences under Sections 307 and 342 IPC, but convicted accused Dewa for the offence under Sec. 436 Penal Code and accused Virma, Laxman and Sangram for the offence under Sec. 436 read with Sec. 34 Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years & with a fine of Rs. 250.00 each. Dissatisfied with the judgment dated Feb. 10, 1989, convicting and sentencing the accused, the accused-appellants have preferred these two appeals. S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 1989 (Virma and others Vs. The State of Rajasthan) was preferred by the accused through their Advocate while S. B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 304 of 1991 (Laxman Vs. The State of Rajasthan) was preferred by the accused appellant Laxman through the jail.

(3.) The case of the prosecution against the accused-appellants is that on Jan. 15, 1986, at about 7.30 p.m., the accused went to the house of Harji in village Bilakhfalla Gorimba and closed the doors of the house by hatching the doors & put the house of Harji to fire. At that time, Harji's wife Hantok, his three sons and brother-in-law Banshi Lal were inside the house. Cattles were, also, inside the house. As the house caught the fire,' Banshilal broke-open the back doors of the house and all the inmates of the house came-out of the house. They, also, tried to save their belongings from the flames of fire. The report of this incident was lodged at Police Station, Rishabdeo on Jan. 16, 1986, at about 6.10 a.m. The prosecution in support of its case, examined seven witnesses. The alleged eye-witnesses, namely, PW 3 Nani and PW 7 Thawra did not support the prosecution case. PW 3 Nani was declared hostile. The remaining three eye-witnesses, who were inside the house at the time when the accused put fire to the house, are PW 2 Banshi Lal, PW 5 Hantok and PW 6 Lalu. PW 1 Harji is the owner of the house who was informed that his house was put to fire and who came to the scene of the occurrence and thereafter lodged the report. PW 4 Narendrapal Singh is the Station House Officer, in whose presence the First Information Report was recorded and who conducted the investigation and presented the challan. The accused, in support of their case, examined DW 1 Harka. The prosecution case, thus, merely rests upon the testimony of the three eye-witnesses, namely, PW 1 Banshilal, PW 5 Hantok and PW 6 Lalu, and the recoveries made.