KISHORESINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore dated December 2, 1974, by which, the appellant has been convicted under Section 436. IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 3 year and a fine of Rs. 510/ - in default of payment of which, further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) THE facts according to the prosecution were these. On the night intervening 27th and 28th November. 1972 at about mid -night Kishoresingh put on fire the 'bara' of Ranjeeta by lighting it with match -Stick. Dharma son of Anaji and Pahada were then returning to their 'dhanies' from village Morseem. They saw the appellant setting a fire to the 'bara'. On seeing them, the appellant went away after riding on a mare. As both the witnesses became busy in extinguishing the fire, they could not apprehend the appellant Both the witnesses raised alarm with the result that Asha and Uda also came there. Ranjeeta and Bhava also arrived sometime after. The fire could not be controlled, with the result that the 'dhani' of Ranjeeta and tome other 'dhanies' were completely burnt. The motive for the crime is alleged to be some petty quarrel between Ranjeeta and the appellant and his father. Two days after the occurrence at village Minda, Ranjeeta lodged written report, Ex.P/1 with Head Constable. Bhanwarsingh of Police Station, Bagoda, who sent it for registration of a case under Section 436, IPC to the police station. Bhanwarsingh rushed to the scene of incident and saw the site and prepared site -inspection notes, Ex. P/2 and site -plan, Ex P/3 Ranjeeta also produced a mare, which was seized by him After completing the investigation, police filed a challan in the court of Munsif Magistrate, Bhinmal, who committed the appellant to the Sessions. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Learned Additional Sessions Judge believed the two eye -witnesses namely Dharma PW 8 and Pahada PW9 and convicted the appellant.

(3.) IT was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the first information report was filed two days after the incident and the explanation given by Ranjeeta for delay in lodging the first information report was not convincing' This delay indicates that Ranjeeta and others were not in know of the facts as to who had set fire to their 'dhanies'. They somehow suspected the appellant and, therefore, Ranjeeta lodged a report against him. I was also taken through the testimony of the two eye witnesses and it was argued that their statements were inherently improbable and not worthy of any credence. It will be highly unsafe to convict the appellant on the basis of the ocular testimony only in the absence of any other circumstances connecting him with the crime. The presence of both the eye -witness at the scene of the incident was highly improbable and in any case they do not inspire confidence. These eye -witnesses are also not independent. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and argued that there were no reasons to disbelieve the testimony of the eye witnesses, whose presence on the scene of occurrence was natural. The delay in lodging the first information report was satisfactorily explained by Ranjeeta.