Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.446 of 2012 ====================================================== Bindeshwari Yadav, S/o Bhagwat Yadav, R/o village-Dholi, P.S.-Bangaon, District-Saharsha. .... .... Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Mahendra Yadav, S/o Late Ayodhi Yadav. 3. Surendra Yadav, S/o Late Manbharan Yadav. 4. Ram Yadav, S/o Late Tilo Yadav. 5. Jogi Yadav, S/o Late Mam Lal Yadav. 6. Jai Narayan Yadav, S/o Late Man Bharan Yadav. 7. Nunu Lala Yadav, S/o Late Tilo Yadav. All are resident of village-Dholi, P.S.-Bangaon, District-Saharsa. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) 2 08-05-2012 This is an appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against acquittal. Respondent nos. 2 to 7 have been acquitted by the trial court. Respondent no. 2 Mahendra Yadav has been charged under [STATUTE] and all the rest have been charged under [STATUTE] . Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 were further charged under [STATUTE] . We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment under appeal. We are of the opinion that the judgment is neither perverse nor Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.446 of 2012 (2) dt.08-05-20 2 / 212 2 illegal in any manner. Merely because this Court would take a different view of the matter is not a ground to justify interference against acquittal. On perusal of judgment, we find that the trial court has noted that apart from oral evidence of the informant, two others and the Investigating Officer that a hut was burnt, there is no material evidence in that regard. The investigating officer admits that he did not seize anything nor prepared any seizure list. In support of the assertion of burning a hut with foodgrains and other articles nothing was seized. None of the witnesses stated the manner in which the hut was set on fire. Two of the prosecution witnesses turned hostile. The trial court has noted that it was the eve of Dipawali and defence suggestion was that the hut caught accidental fire and the accused were falsely implicated. The trial court has noted in para 13 of the judgment various reasons for acquittal. We see no reason to interfere in this matter. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. Sanjeet/- (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J) (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 436

Statute Text:
Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code. Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house etc. Whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause the destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.