Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.58 of 2000 =========================================================== (Against the judgment of conviction dated 24th January, 2000 and order of sentence dated 25th January, 2000 passed in Sessions Trial No.130 of 1997/313 of 1995 by Sri Amitabh Kumar, 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya). =========================================================== Radhey Chaudhary, son of Late Basant Chaudhary, resident of Mohalla- Salempore, Police Station-Muffasil, Gaya, District-Gaya. .... .... Appellant. Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent. =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Amicus Curiae. For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 01-10-2012 ----------------- As in this case, no one is appearing on behalf of the appellant for the last several dates, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate, is appointed as amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant to assist the Court. 2. The appellant, Radhey Chaudhary, has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 24th January, 2000 and order of sentence dated 25th January, 2000 passed in Sessions Trial No.130 of 1997/313 of 1995 by the court of 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya, whereby the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya, convicted the appellant, Radhey Chaudhary, under [STATUTE] and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and imposed fine of Rs.2000/-. In case Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.58 of 2000 dt.01-10-2012 2 / 9 2 of default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. 3. The prosecution case, as contained in the written report (Ext.2) of the informant, Karoo Chaudhary (P.W.3), is that on 9.5.1993 at about 4.30 O’clock in the day he was standing in the back of his house then saw that the accused-appellant, Radhey Chaudhary, son of Basant Chaudhary, was fleeing away setting fire in his Taadi shop. He raised hullah then many villagers rushed there and saw the occurrence. Due to said fire in the hut, the hut completely burnt. The hut was used for selling the Taadi and the same was not used for residence. The cause of occurrence is that in a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the land on which the hut was situated, the order was passed in his favour and due to that reason the accused-appellant, Radhey Chaudhary, set the hut on fire. The informant further alleged that due to said fire no material was damaged except the Taadi, kept in the two earthen pots. 4. On the basis of the written report (Ext.2) of the informant, Karoo Chaudhary (P.W.3), Gaya (Muffassil) P.S. Case No.55 of 1993 dated 10.5.1993 was instituted against the accused- appellant under [STATUTE] . On investigation police submitted the chargesheet on 31.5.1993 under the aforesaid Sections for trial of the accused-appellant. Accordingly, the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.58 of 2000 dt.01-10-2012 3 / 9 3 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, took the cognizance of the offence under [STATUTE] and sent the record to the court of Sri S.N. Tiwary, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gaya, for trial. In course of trial, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of sessions on 20.8.1995 arriving at the conclusion that prima facie offence under [STATUTE] is made out, which is exclusively triable by the court of sessions. 5. After commitment of the case to the court of sessions, the charge under [STATUTE] was framed against the accused-appellant, who pleaded not guilty and, accordingly, the trial proceeded. 6. The defence of the appellant was of false implication on account of land dispute regarding which a civil suit is pending between the parties. 7. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined altogether 5 witnesses, out of them P.W.4, Mahesh Chaudhary and P.W.5, Chunni Singh, are formal witnesses. P.W.4, Mahesh Chaudhary, has proved the protest petition (Ext.3) filed by the informant, Karoo Chaudhary, whereas P.W.5, Chunni Singh, has proved the formal F.I.R. (Ext.5) and the case diary of Gaya (Muffassil) P.S. Case No.55 of 1993 (Ext.6). The other witnesses are P.W.1, Krishna Chaudhary, P.W.2, Bipti Devi and P.W.3, Karoo Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.58 of 2000 dt.01-10-2012 4 / 9 4 Chaudhary, the informant of the case. 8. On the other hand, the defence got exhibited the copy of the plaint of Title Suit No.289 of 1998/306 of 1993 (Ext.A), in which the accused-appellant, Radhey Chaudhary, is the plaintiff and the informant, Karoo Chaudhary, is one of the defendants and also the certified copy of the order (Ext.B) passed under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Survey Act in Objection Case No.1096 of 1989. 9. P.W.1, Krishna Chaudhary, has deposed in his evidence that the occurrence is of 9.5.1993. On that day at about 4.30 P.M. he was coming down from the palm tree then he saw that the accused- appellant, Radhey Chaudhary, came from eastern direction to west direction and set fire in the Taadi shop by a match stick. He raised hullah then the informant, Karoo Chaudhary, came and the accused- appellant, Radhey Chaudhary, started to flee away. Just after the occurrence, many villagers gathered there and tried to caught hold of the accused-appellant, who succeeded in fleeing away. This witness has further stated in paragraph-7 of his cross examination that Durga, Kali, Karu, Prasad Chaudhary, Govind and Lakhan Chaudhary are the sons of his grand father, Hira Chaudhary. He is the son of Kali Chaudhary. P.W.2, Bipti Devi, is the wife of his brother, Koili Chaudhary. This witness has further stated in paragraph-13 of his cross exam

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.