NATHU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Doongarpur dated 29.11.1978 whereby the accused-appellant Nathu has been held guilty of the offence under section 436 Penal Code and has been sentenced to four years rigorous imprisment together with a fine of Rs. 100.00 and in default, to undergo 7 days simple imprisonment.

(2.) The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are: that on the night intervening between 20th and 21st June, 1978, complainant Harishchandra was sleeping in the Parsal of his house with his brother P.W. 5 Shiva. It is alleged that at about 2.30 AM, he was awakened by the barking of his dog. He awoke his younger brother and his mother and then they followed the dog and went behind their house. There, it is alleged, that they found that accused Nathu was removing the Kalus of the house and was setting fire to it while the accused Haliya was standing below on the ground. On seeing them , the accused-persons ran away from the place of the occurrence. They were chased by Harishchand and Shiva for about 30 feet but they could not catch them. When they came back, they found that their Kotha was burning. They raised hue and cry, on which, the attention of their neighboured was attracted and they came to their house and stated putting off the fire. It is alleged that on account of this fire, the complainants Harish Chandra and Shiva were put to a loss of Rs. 2,000.00 . The complainant Harish chandra lodged a report of this incident at P.S. Dhambola on 22.6.1978 at about 2.30 P.M. A case under s. 436 Penal Code was registered against the accused-persons and after Investigation, the case was challaned in the court of learned Addl. Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Doongarpur, from where, it was committed to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Doongarpur for trial. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant Nathu aforesaid. However the accused appellant Haliya was as acquitted. Hence this appeal.

(3.) I have heard Mr. R.N. Mathur, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.K. Soni, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I have carefully gone through the record of the case.