1. Challenge in this appeal is to the conviction and sentence inflicted upon the appellant/original accused by judgment and order dated 23.4.1998, rendered by Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.280 of 1997 convicting the appellant/accused under section 436 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/, with default condition of non payment of fine to suffer further R.I. for six months.
2. The prosecution case which can be summarized as under : The appellant/original accused namely Dharam Kondiram Gumladu is resident of Dongaon and was residing with his wife in a hut erected in his field. The complainant namely Dashabai Ramchandra Namglot i.e. PW 1 also resided similarly, along with her husband and children in the hut erected in the field close to the field of the accused. It is alleged that there was some quarrel between the accused and his wife on 31.3.1997, which was overheard by PW 1 Dashabai and her husband Ramchandra, and therefore, Ramchandra went to the house of the accused and intervened therein and pacified the couple. It is also alleged that fatherinlaw of accused namely Kapoorsingh, on learning about the quarrel between the couple from Ramchandra, i.e. husband of Dashabai PW 1, took away his daughter i.e. wife of the accused from the hut of the accused. Hence, it is further alleged that accused got enraged and went to the hut of the complainant Dashabai on 1.4.1997 at about 4.00 p.m and set her hut on fire with the help of match stick and while doing so it is alleged that the accused remarked that he was doing so in retaliation since his wife was taken away by his fatherinlaw at the instance of PW 1 Dashabaicomplainant. It is further alleged that child of the complainant namely Uddal tried to prevent the accused from putting hut on fire, but he was threatened with a stone. On occurrence of said incident neighbourers assembled but since there was no water around, the hut of the complainant could not be saved and it was reduced to ashes very soon. Accordingly, said hut was burnt completely.
3. It is further alleged that son of the complainant namely Uddal went and called his father Ramchandra, who had gone to work in the field of Kapoorsingh PW 4 and thereafter PW 1 complainant Dashabai and her husband Ramchandra went to Sillegaon Police Station and lodged report Exh. 7 at about 09.00 p.m. on the same day i.e. on 1.4.1997. Accordingly, on the basis of said report offence came to be registered under CR No.53/1997 under section 436 of Indian Penal Code. PW 5 PSI Pandharinath Bhanudas Bhosale was attached to Sillegaon Police Station, at the relevant time i.e on 1.4.1997 and after registering the aforesaid crime, he took over investigation. He visited the spot of the incident on 2.4.1997 and drew spot panchnama Exh.10. He also recorded statements of witnesses including that of Ramchandra and Kapoorsingh PW 4 and Rambhau and on 17.4.1997 he arrested the accused. He saw the hut and the goods such as grains, utensils etc burnt, the estimated loss by fire was quantified at Rs.16,800/. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gangapur on 19.4.1997, however since the offence punishable under section 436 of Indian Penal Code was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gangapur committed the said case to the Court of Sessions, by Aurangabad by committal order dated 12.12.1997.
4. Accordingly charge came to be framed against the accused/appellant at Exh.4 by the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad for the offence punishable under section 436 of Indian Penal Code. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To substantiate said charge, prosecution has examined in as much as five witnesses as mentioned below :
I. PW 1 Dashabai Ramchandra Namglot complainant and eye witness.
II. PW 2 Ramchandra Hirachand Namglot husband of complainant.
III. PW 3 Rambhau Pandurang Kirtikar panch witness of spot panchnama Exh.10.
IV. PW 4 Kapoorsingh s/o Phulchand Phulane father in law of the appellant turned hostile.
V. PW 5 PSI Pandharinath Bhanudas Bhosale Investigating Officer.
5. The defence of the accused is of total denial and the defence of the accused reflected from the cross examination is that there was high tension wire from which the complainant and her husband had taken electricity connection illegally and fire must have been taken place on account of short circuit or some such thing, but accused did not examine any defence witness whereas denied the case of prosecution in his statement recorded under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. After scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence, learned trial judge arrived at the conclusion, holding the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under section 436 of Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced him as afore stated.
7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order dated 23.4.1998 convicting and sentencing the appellant, the appellant has filed present appeal challenging and assailing the said judgment and order dated 23.4.1998 and prayed for quashment thereof.
8. In order to deal with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties effectively, it is necessary to scrutinize the material evidence adduced and produced by the prosecution on record. In the said context. Coming to the deposition of PW 1 complainant Dashabai Ramchandra Namglot, who has stated that she knew the accused who had agricultural land close to her land where she resides along with her husband and children as well as accused also stayed in the hut with his wife and father, and distance of the hut of accused is about 150 feet from her hut. She also stated that at about 7.00 p.m there was quarrel between the wife of the accused and accused and she along with her husband Ramchandra went to the hut of the accused and intervened and pacified them and came back to their home. However, on the next day evening at about 4.00 p.m accused came to her hut and put her hut on fire with match stick and left. She also stated that her son Uddal tried to obstruct but the accused threatened to beat him with stone. She also stated that her husband was not at home and he had gone for work, hence her son went to inform her husband. However, hut was ablazed by fire and everything in the hut got damaged by fire. PW 1 further stated that she and her husband went to Lasur Police Station and lodged the report Exh.7. PW 1 Dashabai gave the cause for setting her hut ablaze by the accused that accused suspected that complainant Dashabai and her husband were responsible for taking his wife away by his fatherinlaw and also suspecting that PW 1 Dashabai and her husband Ramchandra had intimated to PW 4 fatherinlaw of the accused about the quarrel between the accused and his wife.
9. During the cross examination, she admitted that she does not know what was the reason for quarrel between accused and his wife on the previous evening. She also stated that they were in good terms with the accused. She further stated that she cannot state as to what was the verbal reason for the fight between accused and his wife. She further stated that wife of the accused used to go to her father who resided nearby. A suggestion was given to her that hut was used as cattle shade and they never resided there, but same was denied by her. It is also suggested to her that their relations with the accused were strained because of controversy of bandh but same was denied by her. She further stated in the cross examination that they were outside the hut when accused arrived. She also stated that clothes, utensils, grains and cotton everything in the hut was burnt and she had given report to that effect to the police personnel.
10. Coming to the deposition of PW 2 Ramchandra, who is husband of the complainant Dashabai, stated that he used to reside in the field and on the previous evening. wife of Dharam i.e. accused shouted for help since there was quarrel between them, and therefore, he went there and intervened. He also stated that next day, he went to the field of PW 4 Kapoorsingh for the work and at about 4.00 pm his son Uddal came and informed him that accused had burnt his hut. He rushed towards the field and found that people had assembled there and also found that his hut was burnt including grains, utensils therein. He also expressed his apprehension that accused burnt their hut suspecting that they were instrumental in sending his wife with her father. He has further stated that he could not see as to who were the persons assembled since he had lost his senses on account of the shock seeing his hut burnt.
11. In the cross examination, he deposed that he cannot state date, time and month of the incident but he further stated that incident took place about one year back. He also stated that he had gone to the house of the accused on the previous evening at about 8.00 p.m. He also gave the distance of the hut of the accused as 700 feet. He further stated that he had gone alone to the house of the accused for intervening. He further stated that he had not seen burning of the hut until his son came and informed him as well as he did not see accused lighting his hut. Suggestion was given to him that there was no grains in the hut but same was denied by him.
12. That takes me to the testimony of PW 3 Panch witness Rambhau Kirtikar, wherein he stated that he was called by police personnel on 2.4.1997 and they went to the field of PW 2 Rambhau and found that hut was burnt as well as Tur, Kardi, Utensils, Clothes etc. were also seen to be burnt. Accordingly, panchnama was drawn and signature of panchas were obtained as well as Uddal signed thereon and PW 4 Rambhau Panch witness also signed on the said panchnama which is marked at Exh.10. In the cross examination, he stated that he cannot say gat number of Ramchandra's field but stated that distance between the hut of both of them was about 2000 feet. He further stated that he cannot assess the damage caused to the hut which must have been done by the police personnel at the time of panchnama.
13. On the background of aforesaid evidence, the learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that although Uddalsing i.e. son of complainant PW 1 Dashabai and PW 2 Ramchandra was present at the time of occurrence of the alleged incident, the prosecution has failed to examine him to corroborate the testimony of PW 1 Dashabaicomplainant and prosecution has failed to give any plausible explanation for non examination of the said witness, who in fact allegedly was an eye witness to the occurrence of the incident, and non examination of said vital witness sustains fatal blow to the case of the prosecution, since there is no corroboration to the testimony of PW 1 Dashabai, which cannot be construed as unblemished testimony.
14. To substantiate said contention, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon observations made by Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Anil Phukan v/s State of Assam reported at AIR 1993 SC 1462 wherein it is observed that :
"Where the alleged single eye witness being a close relative of deceased was an interested witness and though alleged to be present at place of occurrence but did not attempt to save deceased and also his statement about time of occurrence was contradictory to medical evidence, the testimony of said eyewitness could not be relied upon for conviction of accused. Of course, mere relationship with the deceased is no ground to discard his testimony, if it is otherwise found to be reliable and trustworthy. In the normal course of events, a close relation would be the last person to spare the real assailant of his relative and implicate a false person. However, the possibility that he may also implicate some innocent person along with the real assailant cannot be ruled out and, therefore, it would not be safe to accept his evidence without some independent corroboration, direct or circumstantial."
15. Moreover learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon view taken in the case of Ramaswamy petitioner v/s Mutthu and others respondent, reported at 1976 CRI.L.J. 1504 (Madras High Court) It is observed that "
"This case unfortunately has failed by the inadvertence on the part of the prosecution by non examining the material witnesses cited. Witnesses essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution case is based, must be called by the prosecution, whether in the result the effect of their testimony is for or against the prosecution case. If a material witness has been unfairly kept back, without assigning any acceptable and convincing reason, then a serious reflection is cast on the propriety of the trial itself. It will be seen that the test to find out whether a witness is material for the present purpose is not whether he would have given evidence in support of the defence, but is whether he is a witness essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which the prosecution is based. But there is no obligation on the part of the prosecution to call each and every witness who might speak to something direct or indirect bearing on the offence and thus duplicate the evidence."
16. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that prosecution has failed to record the statements of the neighbourers and none of the neighbourers has been examined before the Court to support the case of the prosecution more particularly, testimony of PW 1 complainant Dashabai. Moreover, it has no where come on record that what kind of the hut was it allegedly belonged to PW1 and PW 2 and nothing has come in that respect in the depositions of PW 1 Dashabai and PW 2 Ramchandra. Accordingly, no description of the alleged hut, which is allegedly burnt has been given by PW 1 Dashabai and PW 2 Ramchandra, and therefore, there is no cogent evidence on record that what type of hut existed prior to allegedly setting it on fire and absence of such evidence diminishes the credibility of the prosecution case.
17. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that PW 2 Ramchandra stated in his deposition that people had assembled on the spot but none of them was examined as independent witness, and accordingly, there is no independent evidence in respect of setting on fire the hut, allegedly by the accused herein. Moreover, it is also pointed out that articles allegedly seized from the said hut have not been produced on the record, to strengthen the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the appellant urged that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the appellant and there is no independent witness/evidence to corroborate the testimony of PW 1 Dashabai complainant, and her sole testimony which is not truthful, cannot be believed and same cannot be construed as basis and foundation for the conviction of appellant herein and consequently, submitted that the appellant herein is entitled for benefit of doubt and he be acquitted, setting aside the conviction and sentence inflicted upon him by allowing present appeal.
18. Mr. S.D. Kaldate, learned APP countered the said argument and submitted that testimony of PW 1 Complainant Dashabai is trustworthy and reliable and same has not been shaken in the cross examination and, therefore, same deserves to be believed. It is also canvassed by learned APP for the respondent that testimony of PW 2 Ramchandra has corroborated the version of PW 1 complainant Dashabai to the extent of burning of the hut and it is further canvassed that testimony of PW 1 is unblemished and truthful and therefore no corroboration is required and therefore said sole testimony can be relied upon as basis for conviction against the appellant herein. Learned APP further pointed out that there is no suggestion or whisper in the testimony of PW 1 complainant Dashabai that accused has been implicated in the present case falsely. To substantiate contention of prosecution, learned APP has relied upon the view taken in the case of Sadhuram and another V/s State of Rajasthan reported at (2003) 11 SCC page 231 wherein it is observed that : "Conviction on the basis of testimony solitary witness, is permissible but in such a case the court must be satisfied that implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of such a witness and that his testimony is so free of blemish that it can be acted upon without insisting upon corroboration."
19. Accordingly, learned APP Mr. Kaldate urged that reasoning given by the learned trial judge while convicting and sentencing the appellant is proper and logical and same cannot be faulted with. It is also submitted that there is no perversity in the judgment and order of conviction against the appellant, and therefore, no interference there in is warranted in the appellate jurisdiction, and accordingly, learned APP supported the judgment rendered by learned trial judge and further submitted that present appeal bears no substance, same is devoid of any merits and same be dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence.
20. I have perused the impugned judgment and order dated 23rd April, 1998 as well as oral and documentary evidence adduced and produced by the prosecution on record as well as considered the submissions advanced by both learned respective counsel for the parties anxiously, and also gave thoughtful consideration to the observations made in the above referred rulings cited by both learned respective counsel for the parties and I am inclined to accept submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, since there is uncorroborated solitary testimony of PW 1 Dashabai i.e complainant in respect of the occurrence of the incident and considering the testimony of PW 1 Dashabai it cannot be considered as it is unblemished testimony which can be construed as basis and foundation for inflicting the conviction against the appellant. Moreover, PW 1 Dashabai stated in her deposition that her son tried to obstruct but the accused threatened to beat him with stone, and she also stated that her son Uddal was very well present at that time and he went to inform to her husband. Hence, there is no dispute as per version of PW 1 Dashabai that her son Uddal aged about 12 years was present at the time of incident, but curiously enough, prosecution has failed to examine said son of PW 1 Dashabai namely Uddal to corroborate the version of PW 1 Dashabai, for the reasons best known to the prosecution. Apparently prosecution has not given any plausible explanation for non examination of the said vital and important witness, may be a child witness.
21. Moreover, it has also come in the evidence of PW 1 Dashabai that they were on good terms with the accused, and hence, question arises why accused/appellant should go to the extent of burning the hut of the complainant when particularly as stated by PW 1 Dashabai and the accused were on good terms. Hence, it is not digestible that the accused would go to the extent of burning hut of the complainant only on the flimsy ground that his wife went away to her father's house due to quarrel which was allegedly informed by complainant to his fatherinlaw i.e. PW 4 Kapoosingh.
22. Testimony of PW 2 Ramchandra states that as per information received from his son Uddal he came to the field and found that people had assembled there and his hut had been burnt, and therefore, PW 2 Ramchandra is the witness in respect of factum of burning of the hut, since he admitted in the cross examination that he arrived on the scene later on and did not see accused lighting his hut, and accordingly, he has no personal knowledge who and how burnt the said hut. Moreover, although PW 2 Ramchandra has categorically stated in his deposition that people had assembled there, but pertinently, the prosecution has not examined any of the said persons who had assembled there and such witness could have been independent witness to support and substantiate the case of the prosecution and prosecution has not given any plausible explanation for non examination of any of such persons assembled there near the hut and said inaction on the part of the prosecution also sustains fatal blow to the case of the prosecution.
23. Besides that, it is also material to note that statement of the neighbourers were not recorded by the investigating agency and none of the said neighbourers has been examined by the prosecution to support the case of the prosecution and even description of the said hut has not been recited by any of the witnesses, nor it is mentioned in the complaint nor deposed by PW 1 Dashabai and PW 2 Ramchandra in their respective testimonies and said lacunae also diminishe the credibility of the prosecution case.
24. In the light of the aforesaid facts and more particularly, non examination of material witness i.e. Uddal reliance can be very well placed on the observations made in the aforesaid ruling cited (supra) by the learned counsel for the appellant and implicit reliance cannot be placed on the version of PW 1 Dashabai complainant to be base the conviction against the appellant since her testimony is not free from doubt so that it can be acted upon without insisting for corroboration, as discussed hereinabove.
25. In the circumstances, considering the infirmities, deformities and lacunae in the prosecution case, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that prosecution case does not inspire any confidence to bring the guilt at home against the appellant in respect of the charge levelled against him and, therefore, the conviction and sentence inflicted upon him, by way of Judgment and order dated 23 April, 1998 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.280/1997 shall not sustain and same deserves to be quashed and set aside, acquitting the accused therefrom by allowing present appeal.
26. In the result, present appeal is allowed and conviction and sentence inflicted upon the appellant by learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad on 23 April, 1998 in Sessions Case No.280/1997 stands quashed and set aside and appellant herein stands acquitted for the offence with which he was charged and convicted. Fine amount, if paid by the appellant, be refunded to him. The appellant is on bail, and hence, his bail bond shall stand cancelled.