- (1.) G. S. N. Triphthi, J. The Additional Sessions Judge, Chamoli (Garh wal) vide his judgment dated 11-8-1979 passed in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 1974, State v. Udat Singh and others, convicted the accused Chandra Singh under Section 436, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo five years R. I. Accused Benchan Singh was convicted under Section 436/34, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo two years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 1000 and in default of payment of fine to further one year's R. I. Accused Udat Singh was convicted under Section 436/34, I. P. C and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to a fine of Rs. 500 only. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo three months' simple imprisonment. Accused Smt. Surji Devi who happened to be the wife of Chandra Singh accused, was acquitted from the charges.
(2.) THE convicted accused have filed this appeal. THE State has not filed any appeal against the order of acquittal passed behavior of Smt. Surji Devi. The prosecution case started on the basis of First Information Report dated 8 5-1974 lodged at 16. 15. p. m. by Shyam Singh, PW 1. He has alleged that his residential house measuring 22 had two portions. one portion he was residing along with his wife and children and in the other portion he used to tether his cattle head and also he conducted his business as a goldsmith. On 8-5-1974 at about 11 a. m. the accused Chandra Singh, Bachan Singh and Udat Singh along with Smt. Surji Devi arrived all sudden at his house and threatened him and his family members. They asked him to vacate the house otherwise they would set it to fire. The complainant, his wife and children as well as cattle vacated the house. Meanwhile-the accused Bachan Singh took out a match box from his pocket and handed it over to the accused Chandra Singh and Chandra Singh set fire to the thatched house of the complainant. The house was made of 'khar' (a type of grass ). Chandra Singh set fire to this house of the com plainant in which all his house-hold goods, ornaments etc. were kept. Manwar Singh was also present at that time and he had witnessed the occurrence. The case was registered at the Police Station at 16. 12 p. m. On the same day the investigation was started by Patwari, Sri Kunwar Singh (PW 4 ). He visited the spot and prepared a site plan (Ext. Ka-4), He exercises police powers in the hill districts. He reached the spot and saw the house of the complainant completely burnt and collected the samples of semi-burnt articles and a memo for the same was prepared. He also recorded the statements of the complainant, his wife and the witnesses of the occurrence and some other persons. He arrested the accused Udat Singh from his house and interrogated him and brought him to his chauki. He was then sent to jail. On 16-5-1974 the Patwari came to know that other accused were also likely to be available, hence he raided the houses of accused Bachan Singh and Chandra Singh and arrested them, including the wife of Chandra Singh. The Patwari brought the accused Bachan Singh and Chandra Singh to the chauki and then sent them to jail. On 24-5- 1974 he recorded the statements of Manwar Singh and other persons of the village on 25 -5-1974. He interrogated certain residents of village Barab. On 26-6-1974 he concluded his investigation and submitted the charge-sheet Ext. Ka-5 against the four accused persons.
(3.) THE prosecution examined Shy am Singh, PW 1, the complainant. He has narrated the entire story, PW 2, Bachan Singh deposed in support of the prosecution. Pratap Singh, PW 3, was the eye-witness. He too has said that he saw that some persons were burning the thatch of the com plainant but he could not see and recognise as to who had set fire. PW 4, Kunwar Singh, Patwari is the Investigating Officer. He has proved the investigation conducted by him. Accused in their statements under Section 313, Cr. P. C. have denied the allegations levelled against them. Accused Udat Singh has said that the complainant is his son-in-law. The complainant resided in the house situated in village Barab. In addition, ho has said that about 7 or 8 years prior to the incident his all four sons separated and he had distributed his property amongst them. Ho had performed the marriage of Manwar Singh. There is no dispute about it. However, Mauwar Singh was asking the accused Udat Singh to give some land to the complainant Shyam Smgh also, but he had not done so. Therefore Manwar Singh was angry with his father and brothers. He is very close to the complainant and has got a false case launched in order to put pressure upon him to part with his land in favour of the complainant.;