r-- Skss .J'-189/(JaiQ ' ", J. P.R p-S6fSOO C-iW NO-—1SS3]^L& Name_^]^PQTS^ Fa lher's iiamc»_^l?-IC<l(>I-^f l^ ~U |'2,G»-> „_..^^'^^^n^sT^ ''^^. ResldeBce^^^^^^^'^5£-^A»e—-3.1 —::' 3ISa^'s|s^p^S6 STT o'ZFQ'Qo .wf^Tro:T3:^^''TS-;£T3TJ^'^RC^^^'^-^__.. ^&SSSSXSK^^^.^ ; ,::. ;::'-'.•'^TST^^'.-T^TcWt^-^ ^^'5VSs 'S .-34i873i, 3TSTF ^•^^B2^B^R'lSerisoner^l5^i?'ii?state»"orwislies^ to toe 'jepresented by legai pra6t^in|s||fi^^Bpeiate courtwiU antproeeed with thecase^fpr. seven days'iinless ths4eg3~^^|ii(8oerappears eariier.IT thelegal practitiQDer does^DOtappearwithiri^seven day^. hema5<»ot be.teatd at.all iF the prisnor .states^tiiat he .does not wsh (o be ^represeated ; bylegal.praetitiaset,.tfa^Sourt ma^proee^ aia-once fliicB.^^e 'case and will not beobliged to give at hearing toany iegEtI-praCtitioiierwhoshoiildappeaT. I. 2. 3. 4. Date of Application fbr copy df Judgenlent Date of wfaich copy received Date fin whichAppeal seH(__23- ^S^^"^f^3:)f^c;^-i3-^^\^t\ffi-^' ^^vry^^^TS^'Sil'^'i'^^S.^ fy^ j-ii-? 1^3' T^M) a-(, (S^ IS.9S ^ Whether tbe prisoner wislies tobe rejrestntedor not- (y5>t>to^ No. L^^q/^^ Confined in^23SjS"Ol£ Name*-^t^tS^32To-fel±'Cy^S<-U<^^ -3^^^^2S02_-,;:.'!^^. No.159/^11>M^g'3/<S^^Sffdated^S'_fi-*-t3^La- Forwarded to th^<5lHFF JUDICIAL MAQI^A^BS^tlS&QA^-J-'.O^^l^^'^^ | i'iS£@^fect>te^N^»| together with'a"cbpy of JudgemeDr and Qrder passtd -^.yyss^ .,.': _: : . . . .': to tlie prc^&r Appeiliate CQurt, - Date of receioyg-g^TM.'s. Offiec Date of receipt of record to accompany tlie ) The memo ofApptaI offhe Appellate C-iuct. ) No. Forwarded to the ^-t.i' ^ ^M 1 ^!l.t. Diite of receipt in Appdlate Court .!> -^•»«VV*S. ^^ff^^ ^:^^ '^ ^cs a'-%- ''"fl*'iS-i.SBS'>.-;^ ^ssss^' (P. T O^ ^:^^:^- ^nKffi1;, SBlBgSSIBSS WSSSsSSSSs: SN^^®^( 'ssssa' ?SSB^wa29S®|SKISI ^SSK BBS UKiE BBi L HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. JusticePritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 627 of 1993 APPELLANT RESPONDENT VERSUS Raju Pathak. State of Madhya Pradesh. Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel for appellant. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava PLfor respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (21 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGM E N T (25.03.2010) Pursuant to the arrest warrant issued by this Court, report dated 3.3.2010 has been received from the concerned Police Station informing that the appellant could not be traced on his given address.Report further shows thateven the surety ofthe appellant namely Vishwambhar Dewangan has stated that neither he knows the accused/appellant nor he has any idea about him. Therefore, this Court has no other option but to decide the appeal finally. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.5.1993 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No. 348/1992 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable '.under Section 436 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. 2. Case Qf the prosecution in brief is that on 9.7.1992 a / written report (Ex.P-2) was lodged by Jagdish Singh, (PW-3) who at the relevant time was working as Sub Divisional Officer jn'-Arpa Sub Canal Division, to the effect that on that day at about 11.45 a.m. the accused/appellant had put the doors of the officeof Chief Engineer, and the curtains hanging thereonon fire with the he'lp of torch. It is alleged that on the previous date al.so fhe accused/appellant had met the administrativeofficer of •11I!i STft"!W^S";!ii3^8S^"4S niilmn' •3ate.. itSIh. '8 .i^g'^a | <s<ig?"^? ^..»y -2-- the said department and informed him that the entire office would be blasted. On the basis of this report, FIR Ex. P-3 was registered for an offence under Section 436 IPC. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 05 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded undersection 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. This apart, five defence witnesses namely Narendra Singh Bhadoria, S.K. Awasthy, B.C.R. Danikar.K.P.Pathak and Ramjivan Singh Kuchwaha (DW-1 to DW-5 respectively) have been examined by the defence in support of its case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant for the offence as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including thejudgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case as no one has seen the accused/appellant setting the doors of the office of Chief Engineerand curtains hanginglhereon, afire. 7. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/State supports thejudgment impugned. 8. V.R.B. Gopal (PW-1) has stated in his evidence that at the relevant time he was working as Chief Engineer, Bango Project and that he Was orally informed by Administrative Officer Shri Pat^ak that someone had set the office on fire but he was not '*» present in the office at the relevant time. S.S. Pathak (PW-2) wtiQ was working as Administrative Officer in the Hasdeo Bango Project, hasstated in his evidence that it is the .aecused/appellant who had put the curtains of the office on fire. Hehas stated that on the previous day also the appellant and •tils Guru namgly K.P. Pathak had come to his office and given siini't1]' iiljiiiEWfflin'aBB' .^^^.^f^ss^ •^•^.^v^a, .-gsss.:. -3— him a letter Ex. P-1 in which it was mentioned among other things that the entire building would be blasted by bomb. He has stated that some hot talks were also there between himand the accused/appellant. Thereafter, Guru of the appellant had threatened him saying that if the accused/appellant would blast the entire building and if any damage is caused thereto, he alone would be responsible for the same. However, this witness has not seen the accused/appellant setting the curtains of the office on fire but he was told by his staff members about the fact that it was the accused/appellant who had done so. SDO Jagdish Singh (PW-3) has stated that after hearing the noise when he came to his office, he saw that one curtain was on fire and the other one was being set on fire by the accused/appellant. In cross examination also he has stated the same thing as in the examination-in-chief. Mahesh Singh (PW-4) has stated that it is the accused/appellant who had put the curtains of the office on fire with the help of torch which he and his colleague had put off. A.L. Kosle (PW-5) Assistant Sub Inspector has also supported the case of the prosecution. 9. Thus almost all the witnesses have stated in their evidence that it is the accused/appellant who had putthe curtains of the office of Chief Engineer, Hasdeo Bango Project, on fire. As the defence has not brought anything on record to disbelieve their statements, the findings recorded by the Court below convicting the accused/appellant under Section 436 IPC do not appear to be at fault. Accbrdingly, the conviction part of thejydgment impugned is maintained. 10. As regards sentence, counsel for the appellant submits that as the .i'ncident had taken place in the year 1992 and considerable period since than has elapsed, it would be in the intQrest of.justice if th& sentence of Rl for four years as irhposed by the Court below is reduced to that of two years. ,11, This submission made by the counsel for the appellant does not appear to be unreasonable and accordingly it is taccepted. Sentence bf rigorous imprisonment for four years fi + ffiili! BCTlM'NIltiBB WSSk l : ^'/ •.^,,^^' •4- imposed on the appellant by the Court below is reduced to that of two years. Appeal is thus partly allowed. ——— Sfl' Pritinker Biwa&er Jadge L ^ ^ Y 0 ilm'nin.lialtauaiiaf