2026:JHHC:19357 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1179 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1179 2005 --------- [Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.08.2005 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rajmahal in Sessions Trial No.137 of 2002 (S.C. No.135 of 2001)] --------- Saheb Sk. S/o-Khusru Sk., resident of village-Daskchhin Palasgochhi, P.S.- Radha Nagar, Distric-Sahibganj ……Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent ---------- For the Appellant : Mr. Ashish Kr. Thakur, Advocate Mrs. Kabisha Goenka, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P. --------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT ----------- CAV On 18.06. 2026 Pronounced On 02/07/2026 1. Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. 2. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.08.2005 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rajmahal in Sessions Trial No.137 of 2002 (S.C. No.135 of 2001), whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under section 436 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. 2026:JHHC:19357 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1179 of 2005 2 Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 31.10.2000 in the night, the informant, Rahul Amin was sleeping in his house situated at village, Palasgachi. In the meantime, he heard some sound of burning of bamboo and woke up and found that fire was spreading everywhere. Thereafter, the informant came out from the house screaming and saw that the present appellant, Saheb Sheikh was running after setting fire in the house of the informant, then local villagers assembled there. It is further alleged that the wife and daughter of the accused were standing near the place of occurrence. The informant with the help of villagers extinguished the fire caught in his house, and thereafter went to lodge this case before police. 4. On the basis of above fardbeyan of the informant, Radhanagar P.S. Case No.190 of 2000 was registered against the appellant along with his wife and daughter for the offence under section 436 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and he was sent up for trial. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions where S.T. No.137 of 2002 was registered. The present appellant has denied the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried. 5. In course of trial, altogether 7 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, namely:- 2026:JHHC:19357 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1179 of 2005 3 P.W.1-Sheikh Farid P.W.2-Rahul Amin (informant) P.W.3-Azhar Sheikh P.W.4- Ishahak Sk P.W.5-Mukhtar Hussain P.W.6-Gulbahar Bibi P.W.7-Bhagwan Mandal 6. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary evidences have been adduced by the prosecution. Ext.1-Signature of Rahul Amin on Fardbeyan Ext.2-Seizure list dated 01.11.2000 in the pen and signature of Rambali Yadav, ASI, Radhanagar P.S. 7. On the other hand, no defence witness has been examined by the defence. However, three documentary evidence, i.e. Ext.A-C.C. of FIR, Rajmahal P.S. Case No.137 of 2000, Ext.B-C.C. of deposition of Saheb SK in T.R. No.547 of 2004 and Ext.C-C.C. of judgment in TR. No.547 of 2004 have been adduced by the defence. The case of defence is denial from the occurrence and false implication. 8. Learned trial court after evaluating the evidence available on record held the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him as stated above, which has been assailed in this appeal. Submission on behalf of appellant:- 9. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned trial court has miserably failed to consider that none of the witnesses have been able to prove that dwelling house of the 2026:JHHC:19357 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1179 of 2005 4 informant was brunt rather during investigation, only two pieces of burnt bamboo, one piece of burnt saree and two pieces of burnt corn cob were seized. The investigating Officer was also not examined to prove the place of occurrence, what was noticed and what was seized by him from the place of occurrence. Therefore, it is quite wrong to say that the dwelling house of the informant was burnt. It is further submitted that admittedly there was some previous enmity with the informant, therefore, he has lit some fuus (dry straw) and bamboo and given colour of setting fire in his house. There are no witness of the occurrence even the informant has claimed to see the accused fleeing away from the place of occurrence, which cannot be given any lucidity to infer that the appellant has set fire in the fuus (dry straws) and bamboo of the informant. It is further submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that any dwelling house of the informant was burnt. It has also failed to prove the involvement and participation of the appellant in the alleged offence but the learned trial court without adverting to the evidence of witnesses along with materials elicited in the cross-examination has given emotional touch to the facts deposed by the informant while convicting the appellant for the offence under section 436 of IPC. It is further submitted that the nature and gravity of offence demands stricter proof for establishing the guilt. Learned trial court has imposed sentence for R.I. of 4 years against the appellant even 2026:JHHC:19357 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1179 of 2005 5 though there was no evidence at all to constitute the offence under section 436 of IPC. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants is liable to be set aside, allowing this appeal. Submission on behalf of State:- 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State controverting the aforesaid arguments submitted that there is no substance in the points of arguments raised by the appellant. Learned trial court has very wisely and aptly considered the overall factual aspects of the case, which has been proved by the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant calling for any interference in this appeal, which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed Analysis, Reasons and Decision:- 11. 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. 12. The only point for determination in this appeal is that “as to whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants passed by learned trial court suffers from any error of law calling for any interference in this appeal?” 2026:JHHC:19357 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1179 of 2005 6 13. Before adjudicating the above point, it is necessary to take brief resume of oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution to substantiate the charges leveled against the appellant. The most important witness in this case is the informant, Rahul, who has been examined as P.W.2. According to his evidence, at the time of occurrence, he was sleeping in his house towards northern side when he woke up hearing some sound of busting of bamboo and saw that southern side of his house, the fire has caught. He saw some bamboos were burning. Thereafter, he came out of the house and saw the accused, Saheb Sheikh fleeing away from the place of occurrence. Then, the local villagers assembled and the fire was extinguished and he lodged this case. This witness has proved his fardbeyan marked as Ext.1. From the very testimony in his examination-in-chief, it is crystal clear that the appellant has not seen the appellant setting fire in his house. He might have seen the accused persons near the place of occurrence but it is not sufficient for leading conclusion that he has set fire in the house of the informant. P.W.1-Sheikh Farid has also claimed to be an eye-witness to the alleged occurrence while he was going to attend the call of nature and saw that the house of the informant was burning. He further states that he saw the accused, Saheb Sheikh setting fire in the house of the 2026:JHHC:19357 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1179 of 2005 7 informant. But in his cross-examination, this witness admits in specific terms that his house is situated about 1/2 kms distance from the place of occurrence. This witness also admits that he can’t tell how many villagers arrived at the place of occurrence for extinguishing fire and also admits that he reached at the place of occurrence after one hour. He also denied any statement given before Investigating Officer. Therefore, his evidence as an eye-witness to the occurrence cannot be relied upon rather he appears to be hearsay witness. P.W.3-Azhar Sheikh is a hearsay witness, who came to know about the occurrence from the villagers and also saw the villagers extinguishing the fire. P.W.4-Ishahak Sheikh is also a hearsay witness and at the time of occurrence, he was sleeping but after hearing hullah, he did not go to place of occurrence and came to know from the villagers that Saheb Sheikh has burnt the house of the informant in the night. P.W.5-Mukhtar Hussain is also a hearsay witness, who participated in extinguishing fire but at the time of setting fire in the house of the informant, he was not present. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution simply because he denies any statement before the police. P.W.6-Gulbahar Bibi has been declared hostile by the prosecution and stated nothing about the occurrence. 2026:JHHC:19357 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1179 of 2005 8 P.W.7-Bhagwan Mandal is an advocate clerk, who has simply proved the seizure list of this case in the handwriting of the then, S.I. of Radhanagar P.S. as Ext.2. 14. From the aforesaid trend of evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is crystal clear that none of the witnesses have been able to prove the involvement of the present appellant in the alleged occurrence of setting fire in the house of the informant. Learned trial court has placed reliance upon testimony of witness, P.W.1 as an eye-witness to the occurrence, but as per his cross-examination, he reached at the place of occurrence after one hour rather and his house is situated ½ kms distance from the place of occurrence. The informant himself has not seen the appellant while setting fire in his house. No motive behind the occurrence has been brought on record. The seizure list (Ext.2) has been proved by in- competent witness without examining the witnesses of seizure list, which also shows that some pieces of bamboos (in small size), some ashes of fuus (dry straws) along with one small piece of burnt saree and two pieces of burnt maize have been seized, which also does not satisfy the conscience of this Court leading towards the conclusion that the dwelling house of the informant was burnt. Nothing has been brought on record of what other property kept in the house have been burnt or any inmates of the house have sustained burn injury. Therefore, bald allegation about setting fire in the house of the informant leveled by the 2026:JHHC:19357 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1179 of 2005 9 informant against the present appellant does not appear to be true. The prosecution has also failed to prove the place of occurrence as dwelling house of the informant as well as commission of offence committed by the present appellant. 15. In view of the above discussion and reasons, I find that learned trial court has committed serious error of law while recording the findings of the guilt for the offence charged against the appellant. There is absolutely no iota of evidence constituting the offence under section 436 of IPC against the appellant. Therefore, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.08.2005 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rajmahal in Sessions Trial No.137 of 2002 (S.C. No.135 of 2001) is, hereby, set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the charge leveled against him. This appeal is allowed. 16. The appellant is on bail. He is discharged from liability of his bail bonds and sureties are also discharged. 17. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 18. 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.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Date: 02/ 07 /2026 Pappu/-N.A.F.R. Uploaded on 03 /07 /2026