- (1.) THE instant appeal has been di rected against the judgment and order dated 23rd June, 1982 passed by the then Sessions Judge, Chamoli in Ses sions Trial No. 1 of 1982 convicting the accused-Anand Singh u/s 427 and 436 I. P. C. , and sentenced him two years and four years R. 1. respectively.
(2.) FEELING aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the instant appeal has been preferred. Brief facts for the disposal of this appeal are that Smt. Jethi Devi was the wife of appellant-Anand Singh and she remained issueless. It was also alleged that the behaviour of the accused was cruel towards his wife, In the year 1966, the appellant-Anand Singh sent his wife to the house of Kalam Singh and took Rs. 1400/- in exchange and his wife started residing with the com plainant-Kalam Singh. The appellant was not happy that she is residing in the same village. He wanted to send her outside the village and to stay in other village. Inspite of the desire of the appellant-Anand Singh, Smt. Jethi Devi continued in the house of Kalam Singh in the same village as his wife. On 29-03-1969 at about 11:00 AM the appel lant-Anand Singh came to the house of the complainant-Kalam Singh with a dynamite (explosive substance) and he installed the dynamite in his house. Due to the broke of dynamite the walls got cracked but the house could not be demolished. Thereupon the appellant started to destroy the house by Sabbal and he also displaced the roof stone from his house and thus caused a dam age of Rs. 700/- to the complainant-Kalam Singh. The complainant alongwith his wife was not at his house at the time of the incident. He was away in the other village and in his absence the incident took place. When the complainant reached at his house, Kishan Singh and others told him about the incident and went to the outpost of Patti Patwari where Patti Patwari was not available on the date of the inci dent. Thereafter, he lodged the report on the next day when Patwari came to his outpost. Thereafter, the matter was investigated and the chargesheet was submitted against the accused-appel lant. The accused-appellant was charged u/s 427 and 436 I. P. C.
(3.) THE accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of his case adduced the evidence of Kalam Singh-complainant PW-1, Govind Singh-PW2, Abbal Singh, In vestigating Officer-PWS. Kalam Singh PW1 is the complainant and Govind Singh PW2 is alleged to have been the eyewitness of the incident. The pros ecution also proved the F. I. R. Ex. Ka. 4.;