Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 202 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Bhagwan Singh

2014-02-13

N.K.GUPTA

body2014
ORDER 1. Heard on admission. 2. The State has preferred the present application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 18.1.2013 passed by the learned second Additional Sessions Judge, Raisen in S.T.No.153/2012, whereby the respondent was acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under sections 285, 435 of IPC. 3. The prosecution’s case, in short, is that, on 15.4.2011, at about 10 a.m. in the morning, the respondent set the remains of his crops on fire and thereafter, he did not take care of that fire and therefore, the fire reached in the field of the complainant Preetam Singh (PW 1) and therefore, two plants of lemon and 2 trees of eucalyptus were burnt. Also, ten quintals of fodder of the complainant was burnt. Preetam Singh has lodged an FIR, Ex.P/1 at Police Station Salamatpur, District Raisen and after due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. 4. After considering the submissions made by the learned Panel Lawyer, it appears that the prosecution examined as many as 3 witnesses namely Preetam Singh (PW 1), Govind Thakur (PW 2) and Sita Bai (PW 3). Govind is son of the complainant Preetam Singh, whereas Sita Bai is wife of Preetam Singh. No independent eye witness was examined. As per allegations made in the FIR, it is specifically mentioned that the respondent set fire in the remains of his crops in his field and therefore, there was no intention of the respondent to cause any loss to the complainant and therefore, it is difficult to say that offence punishable under section 435 of IPC was made out against the respondent. 5. Preetam Singh was confused in the crossexamination. He has accepted that he was not at the spot when fire was initiated. Thereafter, he said that he was present. Again he said that Govind was not present. Thereafter, he said that Sita Bai and Vikrant were present but, he was not present. Under such circumstances, it appears that the complainant Preetam Singh was not present at the spot when fire was initiated. Sita Bai has stated that the respondent set the fire in his field in the remains of his crops, whereas Govind has stated that the respondent set fire in his field but, for reason of setting fire, he could not say anything. Sita Bai has stated that the respondent set the fire in his field in the remains of his crops, whereas Govind has stated that the respondent set fire in his field but, for reason of setting fire, he could not say anything. It is apparent that Govind was a student and in the month of April, he could not enjoy the summer vacation. Under such circumstances, by the statement of Preetam Singh, it would be apparent that Govind was also not present at the spot. However, Govind has accepted that if the fodder of the crop of Gram was kept then, that fodder was of such a nature that it could not catch fire. He has accepted that his father was not keeping fodder in his field and on the contrary, he has stated that fodder was sold by his father. Under such circumstances, the fact cannot be accepted that any fodder of the complainant was burnt due to fire. Spot Map, Ex.P/2 was proved by the complainant himself, by which it would be apparent that field of the complainant as well as the respondent were adjacent but, there was a Mend in between the fields. ASI Shri R.S.Chandel (PW 5) has also proved the spot map, Ex.P/2. He has shown the place from where the fire was initiated and it was marked with letter ‘A’. The place ‘A’ is shown in the field of Dhan Singh. It is nowhere mentioned that the fire was initiated in the field of Bhagwan Singh and thereafter, it came in the field of Dhan Singh. Under such circumstances, the story of Sita Bai appears to be a falsehood. The story as told by the witnesses that the respondent set fire in his field, which was spread in the field of the complainant appears to be incorrect. The complainant and his family members could not know about the fire and when the fire was increased, thereafter, they could know about the fire. They were not capable to see the person who set the fodder on fire or the remains of the field on fire. Under such circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the respondent for offence punishable under sections 435 as well as 285 of IPC. Fire was not started from the field of the respondent. 6. They were not capable to see the person who set the fodder on fire or the remains of the field on fire. Under such circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted the respondent for offence punishable under sections 435 as well as 285 of IPC. Fire was not started from the field of the respondent. 6. There is no basis by which any interference can be done in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Consequently, if appeal filed by the State is considered then, it cannot succeed. Leave to appeal cannot be granted. Under such circumstances, application for leave to appeal is hereby dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused. 7. A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information.