IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal No. 424 of 2006 [against the judgment of conviction dated 22.03.2006 and order of sentence dated 23.03.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-4, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No. 86 of 2003] Dunku Maraiya @ Dhanku Maraiya, Son of Bhagwan Maraiya, resident of Village- Koli Pathar, P.S.- Mohanpur, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand). ….. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Respondent ….. For the Appellant : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. ….. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated: 09th January, 2025 By Court: - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 22.03.2006 and order of sentence dated 23.03.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-4, Deoghar, in Sessions Trial No. 86 of 2003, whereby and where under, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 436 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. of three years along with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. Page 2 of 6 FACTUAL MATRIX 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow compass is that on 03.11.2002, at about 06:30 PM, the informant returned to his house from Hat (market) and saw that a quarrel was being going on between his wife and daughter with the wife of Chigar Maraiya and Metal Maraiya and they were quarreling in a very filthy language. In the meantime, appellant (Dunku Maraiya @ Dhanku Maraiya ) with the other persons came there and appellant, who has holding a match box, set fire to the place, where informant worked as an ironworker, resulting which mattress, straw and handle of hammer were burnt. Thereafter, when informant wanted to go to the police station at night, but at that time appellant and other persons were surrounded his house. The reason behind quarrel is that informant has already filed a complaint against the Chigar Maraiya. 4. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 151 of 2002, G.R. No. 634 of 2002 was registered for the offences under Sections 342/436/323/504/34 of the I.P.C. 5. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer of the case has submitted charge sheet against accused persons for the offences under Sections 342/436/323/504/34 of the I.P.C. After taking cognizance of the offence, the case was committed to the court of Sessions trial. Thereafter, charges were framed for the offences under Sections 147, 342/149, 436/149, 323/149 of the I.P.C., which were denied by accused persons claiming to be tried. 6. After conclusion of trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as stated above. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity. Learned trial court has also not considered the testimony of defence witnesses of this case. It is also not proved that the alleged house was used as dwelling house or for custody property. Appellant is only accused of setting fire to the house, but the under Section 436, which deals with crime of mischief by fire or any explosive with the intent to destroy the building, but the place, where appellant has set fire, is the working place of the informant. No household articles were burnt. Therefore, offence under Section 436 of the I.P.C. is not attracted in this case. Page 4 of 6 8. Per contra, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid contentions and defended the judgment on merits. 9. It appears that in the course of trial six witnesses were examined by the prosecution:- P.W.-1 : Gangadhar Kol (Son of informant) (Heresay witness) P.W.-2 : Gunya Kumari (Daughter of informant). P.W.-3 : Kelku Maraiya (Independent witness). P.W.-4 : Sohagi Devi (Wife of Informant). P.W.-5 : Bhajju Kol (informant). P.W.-6 : Budhan Mandal. 10. Apart from oral evidence, following documentary evidences were also adduced. Exhibit-1 : FIR. Exhibit-2 : Fardbayan. 11. On the other hand, the defence has also examined four witnesses. D.W.-1 : Kameleshwar Maraiya. D.W.-2 : Saral Kumar Sharma. D.W.-3 : Shiv Charan Sharma. D.W.-4 : Sachit Sharma. 12. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side. 13. It appears that there is no concrete evidence that the household articles were burnt and there is no seizure list. Since, I.O. has also not been examined. Therefore, contradictions appearing in the evidence of witnesses was kept unexplained which caused serious prejudiced to the defence. It is also not proved that the alleged house was a dwelling house of the informant. Moreover, the appellant has been held guilty as a member of unlawful assembly with the aid of Section 149 of the I.P.C., but the very common object of the appellant has not been proved by the prosecution. 14. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances the materials available on record, I find that the learned trial court has committed serious illegality while appreciating the evidence of witnesses and arrived a wrong conclusion about the guilt of the appellants. Therefore, impugned judgment and order of sentence of the appellant is hereby set aside. 15. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. 16. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. Dated: 09th January, 2025. Simran/-NAFR