Govind Mallah Vs. the State of M.P.

Govind Mallah vs The State of M.P.

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jan 22, 2013

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1045589

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1045589
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Jan 22, 2013
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Govind Mallah

Respondent

The State of M.P.

Excerpt

.....village, kandhi (pw4), the neighbour and ballu (pw5), nephew of the appellant, came forward with the statement that they had seen the appellant running away from the burning hut. their evidence did not suffer from any material contradiction. the fact that the fir (ex.p-1) was not lodged by munni bai but by her sister girja also did not assume any significance.5. evidence of m.k. tiwari (pw6), the investigating officer, proved the following attended circumstances, as reflected in the panchnama (ex.p/2) and spot map (ex.p/3) - (i) parchhi (verandah) and roof of munni’s hut were completely burned and all the tiles were damaged. (ii) a table fan, 2 patilies (cooking vessels), 4 sarees and the clothes were destroyed by the fire.6. learned counsel for the appellant has contended that no offence of mischief would be made out in view of the admission made by munni and kandhi that the hut also belonged to the appellant. however, the contention is apparently misconceived as even if it is assumed that the hut was a joint property, the appellant had no right to set fire to the same (chaturbhuj pandit v. state of bihar 2005 cri. l. j.1812 referred to).7. in the light of the overwhelming evidence brought on record, the learned trial judge did not commit any illegality in ::3. :: cri. appeal no.315/2003 holding that the appellant had set fire to the house belonging to his wife munni bai. accordingly, the conviction deserves to be affirmed as well merited.8. while pointing out that the appellant has already suffered imprisonment of nearly 10 months, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that reduction of the term of custodial sentence to the period already undergone would be sufficient to serve the ends of justice. however, taking into consideration the social impact of the crime and other relevant circumstances of the case, the prayer is not acceptable. nevertheless, interests of justice would be met if the term of custodial sentence is reduced to 1 year.9. in the.....

Full Judgment

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR Cri. Appeal No.315/2003 Govind Mallah, son of Deshraj Mallah, aged about 30 years, Resident of Ramghat Pipariya, P.S. Shahpura, Presently residing at Village Bagdari, Tahsil Patan, Distt. Jabalpur …Appellant vs. State of M.P., through SHO P.S. Patan, Distt. Jabalpur …Respondent ………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………….………………………………… Shri M.S. Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Akshay Namdeo, P.L. for respondent-State. JUDGMENT

(22/1/13) The appellant stands convicted under Section 436 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years. Corresponding judgment dated 13.2.2003 passed by Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T.No.717/02 is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

2. Prosecution story, in short, is that on 12/9/02 at about 3 P.M., the appellant set fire to a hut constructed by his wife Munni Bai (PW2) on Government land located in Village Bagdari by using kerosene as the medium. The fire engulfed the adjacent hut belonging to her sister Girja Bai (PW1). Consequently, the thatched roof of Munni’s hut, clothes, fan and other household articles kept therein were gutted by fire. Kandhi (PW4), Parmu and Kailash Thakur tried to extinguish the fire and in the process, had caused damage to as many as 200 tiles covering roof of Girja’s hut.

3. The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication due to animosity. According to him, the hut belonged to him only. However, no evidence was led in defence. ::

2. :: Cri. Appeal No.315/2003 4. Munni Bai (PW2), the wife of appellant, categorically affirmed that the fire was ignited by the appellant only by using kerosene. According to her, before doing so, the appellant not only belaboured her but also entered into a quarrel with his younger brother Vinod. Her evidence drew support from the testimony of Girja (PW1), the first informant. Bedilal (PW3), Kotwar of the Village, Kandhi (PW4), the neighbour and Ballu (PW5), nephew of the appellant, came forward with the statement that they had seen the appellant running away from the burning hut. Their evidence did not suffer from any material contradiction. The fact that the FIR (Ex.P-1) was not lodged by Munni Bai but by her sister Girja also did not assume any significance.

5. Evidence of M.K. Tiwari (PW6), the Investigating Officer, proved the following attended circumstances, as reflected in the panchnama (Ex.P/2) and spot map (Ex.P/3) - (i) Parchhi (verandah) and roof of Munni’s hut were completely burned and all the tiles were damaged. (ii) A table fan, 2 Patilies (cooking vessels), 4 Sarees and the clothes were destroyed by the fire.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that no offence of mischief would be made out in view of the admission made by Munni and Kandhi that the hut also belonged to the appellant. However, the contention is apparently misconceived as even if it is assumed that the hut was a joint property, the appellant had no right to set fire to the same (Chaturbhuj Pandit v. State of Bihar 2005 CRI. L. J.1812 referred to).

7. In the light of the overwhelming evidence brought on record, the learned trial Judge did not commit any illegality in ::

3. :: Cri. Appeal No.315/2003 holding that the appellant had set fire to the house belonging to his wife Munni Bai. Accordingly, the conviction deserves to be affirmed as well merited.

8. While pointing out that the appellant has already suffered imprisonment of nearly 10 months, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that reduction of the term of custodial sentence to the period already undergone would be sufficient to serve the ends of justice. However, taking into consideration the social impact of the crime and other relevant circumstances of the case, the prayer is not acceptable. Nevertheless, interests of justice would be met if the term of custodial sentence is reduced to 1 year.

9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned conviction is hereby affirmed. However, the term of consequent sentence of imprisonment is reduced from 2 years to 1 year. Appeal allowed in part. (R.C. Mishra) JUDGE 22 1/13

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Govind Mallah vs The State of M.P. Same Subject Land Acquisition