:e-78 sn^rqn R-ii'* 7T%TT •SPfT^T sfi*ff^) 3=5^ -AIHIri'i), ^iS\WW, ^'ftM'y. S-^.Ar-i0 NIHdl *NI* ^(,,/lb°7- •-^ sn^r.tigw (4ci(.i«i<ti) wiiwafeiai^T SB: HON'BLB SHRI DHIRBNDRA MISHRA, .1. APPELLANT 'RBSPONDSNT Ni ve; Vs. '•• Stm Ku, Piu-upma yajpai, Ad'< HJ-in Kushil Uubey, Addl. 2. 'l'his appeal is ctn-ected ol sentence dated 27-U-200 wnereby learned yessions dud Sections 436, 324, 45j1- and 38 7 yeai~s with fine of Rs. 100/-, lor one montn, to undergo K.I with tme ol Ks. s>u/.- in detauJ clays anct to unclergo K.l. tor payment ot line, to turttier uncli 3. Uase ot me prosecutlon; ttie complainant UeHutitiai wr ll.au a.m., wiien ner son lorb tlie complainant ancl startect al complainant went to tlie tiou Thereafter she went to the hoi Vlial Bingn ancl Kanta etc. intoi on lire. In the past also, tlie ap 't>iif<-t'iii-< Hiicii"'if.1®^<r'i*$i< ^i'affimail^ ~bactia W/o Kacharu Lodni, agecl aDout tiU irs. R/o Graj"n Bundera P.S, Uta-i. Distt, rg ite ot unnattisgarn, tni-ough f.y. Utai, uistt, rg focate tor ttie appellant. n.iblic l^rosecutor tor ttie Htate. [gainst ttie juclgiTient ot conviction ancl order passed m Hessions 'I'nai Mo. oo/^iuui ;e, Uurg tias conyicted ttie appellant under p ol l.^.U. and sentencect to undergo K.l. lor [n det'ault of payment ot' 1'ine to undergo R.i, lor b montns, to unctergo K.l. lor one year ]t of payment of fine to yndergo R.I. for 15 |ne yeai- wim line ol Ks, 5U/- in ctetault ol jrgo K.i. lor io days respectively. m Dnet, is ttiat tne appellant was abusing Iti tiltny language on 13-iy-l^UUU at about l.cl I-ier, tne accused went near tiie iiouse ot [using and assaulung the complainant. T'he i^e ot l^otwai- wno was not in his ftouse. jpe ot LuKeshwar. In me meanwnile, Uopai, llTiecl lier tliat WarbadiaDai 1-ias set ner tiouse Ipellant tiacl threatenecl tlie coniplainan.t t'n.at XI-HG—78 dll^l ?ff Itill'* W SV^Xt shli* 3^^ "41<)l<?i<l, (SiTf1y'l6, Rjciiyy W^v\\ *^|ch •-•—--—-•—--••—-••---•-^ 200 \, ai^?r TRT (4ci('j,'ii<<*T) ^SIIWdfOT 311^1 slie will set her tiouse on lll1 rool ot ner tiouse was bumifl neighbours. Btle .was also inlcj appellant lias stolen me .watj incident was lociged m Volic^ ''.I , 11.3U hrs. Uunng investlgatii] taXen into possession vide B^ f-ll. 'sickle and water pot ^ - vicle seizure memo ol Bx. f-l^ was lilecl. 4. Uunng tnal, 13 witnej appellant tias taKen a delenq the students ot ttie school tro they complainect tier motHer and assaulted her by lathi as stie in lact nad lodgect ttie i neanng Uie leamect counsel t( appellant as mentionecl atxive 5. Leai-ned counsel lor witness to Ue lact tliat tlie complainaiit on tire anct tti conjectures ancl surmises. . Narbacliatiai setting tu-e ttie lii box and Kerosene wittl fter, lias statecl ttiat wlien stie can Uetiuti Bat had caugtit tire. K <<>i''ild<il-) iiicil' tffc^t <RI<(K ^7 3ifOT SII^t :. wnen sne reacned there, sne saw tliat tlie ig. 'l'he tire was extinguisnecl witn tlie tieip ol nnecl by f'lrtu Hatiu ( ^.W.3) ttiat Uie sr pot (Gundij from her house. Report ol the Station Utai vide iix. P-5 on 13-12-2000 at >ti, ttie tiumt root and Oamtioo sticKs etc. were . P-4 on the memorandum of accused vide Ex. vere taKen into possession trom tlie accused J. Alter completing investigation,'ctiarge slieet sses were examined by fne pi-osecution. 'I'ne betore the tnal uourt tlia.t slie tia.d stopped m plucKing drumsticKs li-om her tree, however and ttiereatter son ot tlie complainant caine a result ol whicti slie sustained injunes and 'eport tirst tiowever, leamed tnal Uourt alter )r tlle parties tias convicted ancl sentenced tne tjtie appellant submits tnat ttiere is no eye- appellant tiacl m tact set me Mouse ot tl-ie )e conviction of the appellant is based on It^.W. '2. Meena tias claimecl ttiat sfae saw j)use of the complainant as she brought match lipwever m Her diar;'' statement ol Bx. U-1, she f.e out ot tier nouse, stie saw that ttie nouse ol • jhe lurther submits that Dhal Sing and UpEal. I-HC—7S sn^r^i |t;-i W SII^r sbtlicb 3^^MW^, wS-u'w, Ri^i'yy c^. A-f^" ^ca ^001 •Wt^ *Ulich ••----,---------------^ 200 aii^?T iiaw (1pfg;s^T) TOIIWdfel-SII^I wno allegedly mtormed ttie fiouse on lire; have not be^ appellant under section,.43t>| P.W. 5 Dehuti and P.W" 2 f appellant under Kections 4y|' ol nrtu (f.W. 3) and also on| tne accuseci. Uounsel iurtlier) tact lelt by ttie complainant explained by t.tie appellant in b. Un ttie otHer hanct, impugnecljudgment. y. 1 tiave neard learned 8. P.W, 5 Dehti Bai in het quarrelsome iacty, she is m inciclent also, tlie appellant threatening that she will setl anct assauited ttie coniplaina(-it injuiy on aer toreheacl. Hhe -^ wnile slie was in ttie nouse ol appellant nas set her Iiouse] station to loctge the report, Meena and ottiers toid ner f'lltu inlormecl ttiat ttie acci tiouse, merealter stie ioctgea 9. f.W. '2 Meena claims appellant had set the house lcoraplainai'it tliat the appeUant liad set ner |n exammed and ttius ttie conviction ol tlie ot l.F.C. wnicfi is based on tlie statement ot Nleena cannot be sustainect. Uonviction ol tne I'and 3SU ot i.t^.C. is basea on the statements fhe basis ot the seizure memo ot Bx. ^-1U ol |submits ttiat ttie water pot in question was m tJ'ierselt in tier nouse and tnis nas tieen duly ber statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. |eaiTied counsel lor ttie Btate supports tne <*wfff^l"t *<|t<<"if4.ft^ <l"l($i< ^? 3iRn_3Di5r c<}unsel tor tiie parties. deposition has stated tnat tlie appellant is a ]tie habit ot abusmg viUagers. Un tne date ot |?as abusing. She rushed towards her house iner house on lire and startect ttirowing clod by sicttle as result ot wl-iich stie sustained fent to ttie nouse ot Kotwar witll ner cnUdren. Kotwar, stie was intonned Dy Kotwar ttiat me on iire and she herselt iiact gone to poiice jytiereupon sne returnecl to tier tiouse wnere the appellant nas :set her nouse on tire. jisecl nas taken water;pot tUuncti) trom tier report ol Kx. P-5. tierselt to be eye-witness to tlie lact tnat ttie |3t the complainai'Lt on tire, howeyer, she has tliat ttie XI-HG—78 sii^r ?ii R-fWi wnsii^rwqN; 'S^f^Wvyf, axflwKo, Rf<7>i'yy f<r.^.^.l5t,)-3boQ— Ml^^l *<4icb ----•••--•••••••••-----—---^ 200 sn^?T ii'ra; (4ci(-i<i<{ti) TOIIW ^ifer SIT^I not mentionecl tms lact in ner stated m tier diary statement that tlie tiouse- ot Uetiuti Bai reliance upon the statements <f" the 18 ol' the judgment hfis he'lf. complainant tnat stie shall se1| abusmg tne persons wtio .were beyond reasonable doutit ttiat house of the complainant on| statements of P.W. 2 Meena ai1 tlie witnesses nas statecl tliat extinguisning tire. Bo lar as ste|t tias macle.matenal improvemen) lias tumed as eye-witness statement, stie ctid not witness not justiliecl to act upon me coming to tne coriclusion thal complainant on'tire and tieneti] appellant, ttieretpre, conviction cannot be sustainecl. iu. sso tar as conviction ot l.t^.C. is concernecl, ttie same is| recovery ot stolen aiticles on tl^ ttiere is no cross-exaiTiination nerselt tias admitted tnat ttie house, theretore, conviction ot ret cf>t<rf<Kt<ni 1CTmcif^fet^ ^f^F'i^ '^3lf?PT3n^f diary statement. Un ttie contraiy, stie has tf|at when stie caine out ol lier faouse, sne saw had caugnt lire. 'l'tie (Jourt below placmg cf: f.W. S Uehuti and f.W. '2 Meena, m para tnat ttie appellant tiad threatenecl ttie ner house on lire anct tnerealter she was ixynguistiing tlie tire, theretore it is proved qne appellant was responsible lor setting the tire. 'l'ne above tinclmg is based on the (d tne complainant. Bxcept Meena,1 none ol appellant was stoppmg ttie persons trc>m (tem-ent ot Meena (f.w. '2} is conceniect, sne m her diarv statement ot Ux. U-l and sne ti^lore ttie Uourt mough as per ttie diaiy |the incident, therefore the Court below was st^tement ol f.w. '2 Meena tor the pui'poses ol tlie appellant tiad. set ttie tiouse ot me 4 ot doulDt ougnt to tiave been given to the pt the appellant under aeotion 406 ol l.t^.u. tHe appellant under Bections 454 and ayu ol based on statement ot y'lrtu as also on the te memo ot tlie accused vicie Bx. f-11 and |ol r'lrtu. Un ttie ottier nand, ttie accused ;overy ol stolen articles was macle trom 1'ier appellant under Bections 454 and ayu ot the i' •:•". •• ' ii w.,,.:-s XI-HC—78 sn^iw ft-ii'* TfSff 3n^?T'gTRl^ i',.-,' ~Sw[ ^|A||i?i-i|, o'al+f'Ko, (sirti'yy ^r ^^...^^.^a.3^^ ^ an^?r •IRW (ipf^^i) ^dI^R ^E?a sn^T aitid l.F.U, appears to be-proper tinding. Bimilarly, conviction cf tiased on ttie statements ol seen ttie appellant quarr^Ung| ot the tnal Uourt in this regard| M. in tlie result, tne appeal| under yection 't3b ot I.P.U, ai'e set aside, Mowever, her l.f.C. and tne sentences impos| 12. ' lt is stated that the apj 2001 and t'rom 12-5-2001 ti| counsel tor ttie Ktate and as yeai-s ol jail. sentence, ttieretoi] Iiberty lonnwith it •nof requirect| no interterence is called tor. m tiie above ttie appellant uncler ssection 324 ol l.f.U. is Uetiutibai as also tne otner witnesses who nave |witn ttie complamant, tneretore, ttie linding also does not call lor any mterterence. [is partly allowect, (Jonviction ol ttie appellant ar|cl tlie sentences imposed under ttiat section cofiviction unaer Bections 404, a»U ancl s'^t ol )S^cl under ttiose sections are maintained. |>eUai-it was in jail Irom 14- ia-^000, to •2.'&-'2.- [1 date, which is not disputed by leamed s|-ich she has already compieted more than 6 1p, it is directed ttiat the appellant Ge set at cbFlf^Fft'f tin^f '^J^^' <fwl+$<< ^T sifin sii^r in any ottier case. f Sd/- DfflRENDRA MISHRA Judge