Madhya Pradesh High Court
Phool Singh Pradhan vs The State Of M.P. on 6 August, 2024
Author: Anuradha Shukla
Bench: Anuradha Shukla
1 CRA-897-1998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 6 th OF AUGUST, 2024
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 897 of 1998
PHOOL SINGH PRADHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
None for the appellant.
Ms. Vineeta Sharma - Panel Lawyer for the State.
Reserved on : 24.07.2024
Pronounced on: 06.08.2024
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal has been filed to challenge the judgment of
conviction and sentence delivered on 25.3.1998 by Sessions Judge, Seoni, in
Sessions Trial No.80/1997 holding the appellant (hereinafter referred to as
"accused") guilty of the offence of Section 436 IPC and sentencing him to
three years rigorous imprisonment.
2. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the case are that complainant
Sadaram was the neighbour of accused and their houses had a common roof;
on 21.5.1997 at around 9:00 p.m. complainant Sadaram was in his courtyard
and a quarrel broke out between him and the accused; complainant went
inside the house but he was chased, therefore complainant went inside the
house of his brother Murari but accused did not stop quarrelling and asked
Sadaram to remove his household items from the house as he was going to
2 CRA-897-1998
set the house on fire; thereafter, accused set the grassmound on fire resulting
into spread of fire to the house of complainant as well as of accused; since
both the houses were on fire, the villagers helped in extinguishing the fire but
both of them burnt down, this resulted into damages of almost Rs.20,000-
Rs.25,000/-; the matter was reported to the police and the charge-sheet was
filed. After holding the trial, the Sessions Court convicted and sentenced the
accused as detailed above.
3. The grounds raised in this criminal appeal are that the learned Sessions
Judge failed to consider the evidence available on record; he also ignored the
fact that the houe of accused was also burnt in the incident and there was
previous enmity between the parties as has been admitted by complainant in
his testimony; there was no independent corroboration to the facts alleged by
prosecution; P.W.1 and P.W.2 were the interested witnesses while P.W.3 and
P.W.4 did not support the prosecution case; there was inherent contradiction
in the testimony of witnesses; the court below failed to examine why an
individual would cause damage to his own house through arsony. It was,
therefore, prayed that the appeal should be allowed and the accused should
be acquitted.
4. State has opposed this criminal appeal claiming that the judgment of
conviction and sentence delivered by the court below does not require any
interference.
5. At the stage of final arguments the accused failed to appear, hence the
arguments of learned counsel for the State alone were heard. Record of the
court below has been perused.
6. In this case, prosecution has relied upon the testimony of five witnesses,
3 CRA-897-1998
namely complainant Sadaram (P.W.1), his mother Laxmibai (P.W.2), his
neighbours Shikalvati (P.W.3) and Radhabai (P.W.4) and Investigating
Officer D. L. Shivhare (P.W.5). Exs.P-1 to P-4 are the documents produced
in evidence. Kailash (D.W.1) was examined in defence and Ex.D-1 is the
police statement of Radhabai (P.W.4). No memo was produced in evidence
to show the assessment of damages or to disclose the extent of damages to
the houses of complainant and also of accused. Only a seizure memo was
prepared about the ash seized from the spot, which did not reveal the extent
of fire and the damage.
7. Admittedly, houses of the complainant and the accused were on fire at
the time of incident. The prosecution case is that accused first physically
attacked the complainant and then set the house on fire after making an
exhortation to that effect. Incidentally, the injury caused to complainant
Sadaram on account of this physical assault has not been proved in the case.
The oral testimony of Sadaram (P.W.1) and his mother Laxmibai (P.W.2)
reveal that accused physically assaulted the complainant but they both are
silent on the part of body of complainant hit upon by the accused in this
assault. They are silent even on the description of the weapon or the body
part used by accused for this assault. There is no disclosure about the nature
of hurt sustained by complainant Sadaram in this attack. Thus, whatever they
have said about the physical assault on complainant by the accused is not
worth reliance for the simple reason that it lacks details and corroboration.
8. The statements of complainant Sadaram (P.W.1) given in his cross-
examination reveal that the house in which he was living was adjacent to the
house of his nephew who had sold his part to the accused and since then he
4 CRA-897-1998
became neighbour of accused. He has also admitted by him that the relations
of accused with him and also with his family were very strained ever since.
These admitted facts reveal that the parties were on inimical terms, therefore
the prosecution evidence needs careful scrutiny.
9. It is an admitted fact that the house of accused was also burnt in the
incident. Sadaram (P.W.1) and Radhabai (P.W.4) have claimed that they
heard accused making a loud declaration that he was setting his house on
fire. According to Sadaram (P.W.1), accused asked this witness to remove
his household items and thereafter accused ignited the fire, whereas Radhabai
(P.W.4) claims that accused asked all the neighbours to remove their
household items from the houses as he was going to lit the fire. Thus, there is
variation between the claims made by Sadaram (P.W.1) and Radhabai
(P.W.4) on the fact whether the accused warned Sadaram in particular or was
warning all the neighbours.
10. It is an admitted fact that none of the witnesses examined by the
prosecution had seen the accused setting the house on fire. The prosecution is
holding accused liable for arsony only on the basis of loud declaration made
by him prior to the incident but, as discussed earlier, there is contradiction in
the prosecution testimony about the contents of this declaration. In the light
of absence of direct evidence about arsony and also considering the enmity
between the two sides, the fact which requires examination is whether the
incident of arsony was accidental or was intentional.
11. It has been admitted by all the prosecution witnesses that the house of
accused was also burnt in this incident and it was claimed that the accused
had put his own house on fire which resulted into the damage to the house of
5 CRA-897-1998
complainant as well. To show that the act of accused in these circumstances
was intentional, it was supposed to be proved that accused had taken all the
measures to safeguard his own household items kept in his house so that he
could suffer the least damages in the incident but not a word has been spoken
on that point. No prosecution witness has claimed that after removing his
own household items, the accused mischievously set the two houses on fire.
No prudent person would act in such a manner that to take revenge he would
knowingly cause equal damage to himself. On one hand, it is being claimed
that accused was giving a warning to the complainant/neighbours to take
measures to safeguard his/their household items and, on the other hand, there
is no evidence available on record that before setting the two houses on fire,
he had taken steps for the security of his own items.
12. In the light of aforesaid discussion and also for the reason of enmity
between the two sides, who were immediate neighbours, the story set up by
prosecution seems completely improbable and cannot be believed.
Consequently, the conviction of accused for the offence of Section 436 IPC
is hereby set aside and his criminal appeal is allowed .
13. The accused is already on bail. His bail-bonds stand discharged.
14. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused be refunded to him.
15. A copy of this judgment along with its record be send to the trial court
for information and necessary compliance.
(ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
6 CRA-897-1998
ps
Date: 2024.08.07 13:04:32 +05'30'
