- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B.CR.REVISION PETITION NO.1242/2005 (Shankar Lal Meena Vs. Dharmendra @ Pappu & Ors.) S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 CR.P.C. ***** DATE OF ORDER::-04-09-2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr.S.N.Kumawat,for the petitioner Mr.B.K.Sharma, Public Prosecutor BY THE COURT: This is a revision petition under section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 27th September, 2005 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Sessions Case No.27/2005 (State vs. Dharmendra & Ors.). Briefly stated the facts for disposal of this revision petition are that complainant Shankar Lal Meena (P.W.3) lodged a written report in the police station, Shivdaspura (Jaipur) alleging therein that on 13.11.2004 while he was on the eve of festival taking meals at his residence, suddenly at that time two person, who were his neighbourers informed that his thachet hut has been set on fire. It was also stated that he was having strained relations with Ram Narain Meena R/o Dholi Wale Tan Mundli as three months before the incident, he told - 2 - that he will set on fire his flour mill. It was also averred that when he came from his flour mill at about 7:30 P.M. at that time, Charmendra @ Pappu and Prabhu Narain along with two persons were near the flour mill. It was also averred that he suspects that his flour mill was set on fire by above persons. On this report F.I.R. No.236/2004 under sections 447 & 436 I.P.C. was registered and after completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Magistrate under sections 447, 436 & 34 I.P.C., the matter came up for trial before the learned trial court. The learned trial court framed charge against the accused under sections 447, 436 read with section 34 I.P.C. to which the accused respondents denied and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses and tendered 6 documents in documentary evidence. In the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. it was stated by the accused that they were falsely involved in the case. No evidence in defence was produced. The learned trial court vide its judgment dated 27th September, 2005 acquitted the accused of the charge framed against them under section 447 & 436 I.P.C. Hence this revision petition has been filed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by the evidence it has been established that respondent set on fire the thachet hut and the flour mill of the complainant, therefore, the learned trial court ought to have convicted the accused for the offence committed by them. It is - 3 - contended that the statements of P.W.4 & P.W.13 have not been properly considered by the trial court. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contends that judgment of acquittal has been passed after proper appreciation of evidence brought on record. Therefore, the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court deserves to be upheld and the revision petition is liable to be rejected. I have considered the submissions made before me and carefully gone through the impugned judgment and also the statements of the witnesses recorded in the case. In the present matter, the point which requires consideration is whether the learned trial court has misread the evidence while acquitting the accused of the alleged offence committed by them under section 436 & 447 I.P.C. In this case, P.W.1 is Ram Karan. He has not seen the incident. P.W.2 is Hemraj. He also does not say that the accused were seen by him setting on fire the thachet hut and the flour mill of the complainant. P.W.3 is the complainant Shankar Lal Meena. He has stated that he had received the information from some persons about the damage done to his flour mill and thachet hut and it was not told by them as to who was the person responsible for the incident. P.W.4 is Gopal. He has only stated that he has seen from a little distance some light and in that light he saw Prabhu Narain, Dharmendra and Gopal. He also does not say that he saw the - 4 - accused respondents setting on fire the flour mill and were responsible for the incident. In the cross examination, he has denied the material part of his police statement Ex.D3. His statement is of no help to the prosecution. P.W.5 Lala Ram, P.6 Nathu, P.W.7 Chhaju Ram, P.W.8 Ramphool, P.W.9 Panchu, P.W.10 Shri Narain and P.W.11 Jai Narain have not stated that they saw the accused setting on fire the thachet hut of the complainant. P.W.13 Laxmi Narain has stated that on the day of incident at spot the accused were seen by him. He saw the accused in the light which was of the match stick. In the cross examination, he has denied the relevant material part of his police statement Ex.D5. He has also stated that in the subsequent statement recorded by the police, he made mention of the accused respondents. His statement when seen along with the cross examination then it appears that he is not a reliable witness. P.W.14 is Ramkesh. Though he has stated that he saw the accused respondents setting on fire the thachet hut of the complainant, but in the cross examination, he has denied the material part of his police statement in relation to the role assigned by him in his examination in chief. P.W.16 Shri Narain has been declared hostile and he has not supported the prosecution case. P.W.17 Jagdish, P.W.18 Nanda Ram, P.W.19 Kana Ram and P.W.12 Badri Narain are the formal witnesses. P.W.20 Hari Shanker is the Investigating Officer in the case. He has recorded the statements of the witnesses and titamba bayans of the witnesses. - 5 - A perusal of the statements of the witnesses in this case reveals that it is a case, where sufficient evidence has not come on record to prove the guilt of the accused respondents for offence under section 436 or 447 I.P.C. It also appears that there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and the alleged eye-witnesses either they have not involved the accused in the case or their testimony is of no help to the prosecution. The learned trial court after examining and assessing the evidence brought on record found that the complainant and the accused were not on good terms. The F.I.R. Was lodged only on the basis of suspicion and the evidence was not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused respondents. The finding recorded by the trial court appears to be reasonable and proper. It further appears that the learned trial court has correctly appreciated the evidence and committed no illegality in acquitting the accused respondents in absence of sufficient evidence to prove the charge levelled against them. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court has misread the evidence and the evidence brought on record was sufficient to hold the accused respondents guilty is not liable to be accepted. In view of the evidence discussed hereinabove and produced in the case, the revision petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed. (S.P.PATHAK) J. - 6 - BKS/-