Balwant Singh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Hon. Shri S.K. Seth, J.—Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Special Judge, Mandsaur in Special Criminal Case No.73/2002, appellant has preferred this appeal. By the impugned judgment, trial Court found him guilty of offences punishable under sections 435 & 506-B of the IPC and sentenced him to till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-under section 435 IPC and Rs.500/-under section 506-B IPC with default stipulation.

Facts leading to present appeal are as under. Complainant Amritram lodged a report in police station Bhavgarh, district Mandsaur against the appellant alleging that on 18.04.2002, the appellant set fire to the trees standing on the boundary of the complainant''s agricultural field and when he protested, appellant abused him and threatened with serious consequences. According to complainant, the incident was witnessed by Bhagatram (PW/2). On the basis of the said complaint, a criminal case was registered against the appellant for offences punishable under sections 294, 435 and 506-B IPC read with section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). After investigation was over, charge sheet was filed. Appellant denied the charges and claimed that he was falsely implicated, therefore, he was put to trial.

Learned trial Judge considering the oral testimony of complainant Amritram (PW/1); his son Bhagatram (PW/2) and Narsingh (PW/3) found that no offence u/s 294 IPC read with section 3(1)(x) of the Act was made out, therefore, appellant was acquitted of the said charge. Learned trial Judge, however, found him guilty of offences punishable under sections 435 and 506-B IPC, therefore, sentenced him to till rising of the Court with a fine, as is stated herein above.

Perusal of record shows that the entire prosecution case hinges upon the evidence of complainant Amritram and his son Bharatram. Prosecution has projected these two persons as eye witnesses. According to Amritram, on the date of incident at about 6 P.M in evening, he had gone to his field and found that the appellant had set fire to dry leaves on the boundary of the agricultural field. It is not in dispute that the agricultural field of the appellant is adjoining to the agricultural field of the complainant which is separated by a boundary (Med/Seda). According to the witnesses, when he remonstrated with the appellant, the appellant dared him to do what he can do. This witness deposed that the incident was witnessed by Bhagatram who was also present in the agricultural field. Bhagatram was examined as PW/2. He has supported the story of his father. According to these witnesses, when the appellant refused to pay any heed to their protest, they went home and did nothing. The matter was reported to the village Choukidar Narsingh (PW/3) next morning, who came to the spot and saw some burned timber but no tree was found burned except that eucalyptus plants only suffered the heat affecting the leaves but no substantial damage was done to the plants. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the matter was not immediately reported to the Police but when the demand of compensation by the complainant was not met, he lodged the report after four days in the police station. No doubt, prosecution tried to explain the delay but in the facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid delay of four days has substantially weakened the prosecution case.

There is another thing inasmuch as Narsingh (PW/3) was categoric that the name of the culprit was not disclosed to him by the complainant or his son Bhagatram when they visited him in the next morning. It is also very surprising that the complainant or his son made no effort to extinguish the fire. It is a matter of common knowledge that after harvesting, the crop waste material is usually burned on the field which provides nourishment to the soil for the next crop. Considering all these facts coupled with the fact that no offence was found proved against the appellant u/s 294 IPC read with section 3(1)(x) of the Act, we find it difficult to hold that offence under sections 294 and 506-B was made out against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt, therefore, his conviction and sentence cannot be sustained.

As a result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is hereby set aside. The fine amount, if paid, be refunded to him. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.