K.Sornam vs The Inspector Of Police
2023 Latest Caselaw 4745 Mad

                                                                                 Crl.R.C.(MD)No.117 of 2017



                       BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                        Date : 25.04.2023

                                                           CORAM:

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                               Crl.R.C.(MD)No.117 of 2017

                     K.Sornam                                 ... Petitioner/Appellant/Accused

                                                                 vs.

                     The Inspector of Police,
                     Avudayar Kovil Police Station,
                     Pudhukottai District.
                     Crime No.103 of 2009           ...Respondent/Respondent/Complainant

                     PRAYER : This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section
                     397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the Judgments delivered by the
                     learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai, in Crl.A.No.16
                     of 2011, dated 18.01.2017 confirming the Judgment given by the learned
                     Sub-ordinate Judge in Sessions Case No.56 of 2010 dated 22.12.2010
                     and acquit the petitioner/accused.


                                       For Petitioner     : Mr.R.Sevugaraja

                                       For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
                                                        Government Advocate (Crl. side)

                                                            ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the Judgment

passed in Crl.A.No.16 of 2011 by the learned Additional District

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.117 of 2017

Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai, dated 18.01.2017 confirming the order

passed in Sessions Case No.56 of 2010 by the learned Subordinate Judge,

Pudukkottai, dated 22.12.2010 and thereby, acquitting the

petitioner/accused.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.07.2009 at about 10.30

p.m. the owner of the thatched shed went to Pudhukottai by engaging

P.W.2 in order to take care of his house and the shed. At that juncture,

P.W.2, after seeing the fire in the thatched shed, went to the scene of

crime and on seeing that, the petitioner had set fire to the shed.

Therefore, the entire shed burned out, due to which, one bullock cart,

wooden things and 11 hens were completely burned out. Hence, the

complaint.

3. On the side of the prosecution, 7 witnesses were examined as

P.W.1 to P.W.7, exhibited 5 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and produced

one Material Object as M.O.1. On the side of the accused, no one was

examined and no documents were exhibited.

4. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court

found the petitioner/accused guilty for the offence under Section 436 of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.117 of 2017

IPC and sentenced him to undergo 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to

pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 6 months Simple

Imprisonment.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal

before the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai in

Crl.A.No.16 of 2011 and the Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal

on 18.01.2017 and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by

the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been

filed.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there

are contradictions between the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the

prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond any doubt. Even

according to P.W.1, who is an eyewitness to the occurrence, deposed that

the petitioner and two others had set fire to the thatched shed. However,

the respondent has failed to secure any accused persons and it is fatal to

the case of the prosecution. There was no such occurrence happened.

Since there was a previous enmity between the petitioner and P.W.1, a

false complaint had been foisted as against the petitioner. Except P.W.2,

no other independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.117 of 2017

order to prove the case of the prosecution. P.W.2 is none other than P.W.

1's employee and therefore, he is an interested witness. Even then, both

the Courts below mechanically upheld and confirmed the conviction and

sentence imposed against the petitioner.

7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) would

submit that the eyewitness was examined as P.W.2. The property owned

by P.W.1 and he engaged P.W.2 in order to take care of his property along

with the thatched shed. The thatched shed was put up by P.W.1 to protect

the wooden things, bullock cart and hens. Now, only to put down the fire

set up by the petitioner, P.W.1 sustained loss to the tune of Rs.1.5 lakhs.

Therefore, both the Courts below rightly and concurrently held that the

petitioner is liable to punish for the offence under Section 436 IPC and as

such, he does not require interference by this Court and prayed for

dismissal of this revision.

8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused

the materials available on record.

9. The petitioner is the sole accused in the complaint lodged by

P.W.1, who is the owner of the thatched shed. The thatched shed was put https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.117 of 2017

up by P.W.1 for custody of his property such as, bullock cart, wooden

things. Eleven hens were living there. After seeing the fire in the thatched

shed, P.W.2 came out from his house and on seeing that the petitioner set

fire to the shed, he was fleeing away. Though there was no other

eyewitnesses, P.W.2 categorically deposed that the petitioner only had set

fire on the shed. Though he stated that he had also seen two other

persons, he had categorically and cogently deposed that the petitioner

only had set fire on the shed owned by P.W.1. It was immediately

informed by P.W.2 to P.W.1, who went to Pudhukottai. After visiting the

burned shed, P.W.1 lodged the complaint on 28.07.2009. On receipt of

the said complaint, the respondent registered the FIR.

10. A perusal of the FIR revealed that there was previous enmity

between both the villagers, due to which, there was panchayat held, in

which, the petitioner had spoken about the issues. Therefore, there was

enmity between them and as such, the petitioner had set fire on the

thatched shed owned by P.W.1. There was no delay in lodgment of the

complaint. Since on receipt of phone call from P.W.2, P.W.1 immediately

came to his native and had seen the burned thatched shed. Immediately

on the next day, he went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint.

In fact, immediately after fire, P.W.2 informed to fire service. They came https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.117 of 2017

to stop the fire. The fire service man was examined as P.W.5. On receipt

of the information about the fire accident, immediately they came to the

scene of crime at about 11.15 p.m on 27.07.2009 and poured water to

stop the fire. He also deposed that the thatched shed was completely

burned out, in which, the bullock cart was also completely burned out

and the hen shed was also burned. Therefore, the prosecution

categorically proved its case beyond any doubt. Hence, both the Courts

below rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 436

IPC.

11. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that he is ready and willing to compensate for the loss caused due to the

fire. That apart, the petitioner was already incarcerated for more than a

month.

12. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the cases,

this Court is inclined to modify the sentence alone.

13. Accordingly, the conviction imposed on the petitioner for the

offence under Section 436 IPC in Crl.A.No.16 of 2011 by the learned

Additional District Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai dated 18.01.2017 is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.117 of 2017

hereby confirmed and the sentence is modified to the effect that the

petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the

victim/P.W.1 directly by way of demand draft and produce the

acknowledgement/receipt before the respondent on or before 12.06.2023.

If the petitioner fails to pay the compensation, the sentence imposed on

the petitioner for the offence under Section 436 IPC by the Courts below

will be hereby restored and the respondent is directed to secure the

petitioner to serve the remaining period of sentence as imposed by the

Courts below.

14. With the above directions, this Criminal Revision Case is

partly allowed.

25.04.2023

sji NCC : Yes/No Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No To

1.The Additional District Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai.

2.The Sub-ordinate Judge, Pudukkottai.

3.The Inspector of Police, Avudayar Kovil Police Station, Pudhukottai District.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.117 of 2017

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN , J.

sji

4.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Crl.R.C.(MD)No.117 of 2017

25.04.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis