Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.60 OF 1996 (Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 27.3.1996 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi, in Sessions Trial No. 82 of 1990/29 of 1990) -------- 1. PUNIT RAI, SON OF LATE CHULAHAI RAI 2. SUKESHWAR RAI, SON OF LATE CHULAHAI RAI 3. RAM SAGAR RAI, SON OF SUKESHWAR RAI 4. RAM PADARATH RAI, SON OF SUKESHWAR RAI 5. SITASARAN RAI, SON OF AYODHI RAI 6. RAM BISHEKH RAI, SON OF SHUSILAL RAI 7. RAJENDRA RAI, SON OF NAWALAL RAI. ---------APPELLANTS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR -----------RESPONDENT ---------- For the Appellant : Mr. V.R.P. Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Suman Kumari Singh, A.P.P. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: All Appellants have been convicted under Sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment under each Section whereas the Appellant No. 1 has been convicted under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years whereas the rest of the Appellants have been convicted under Section 436/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi, by a Judgment dated 27.3.1996 in Sessions Trial No. 82 of 1990/29 of 1990 2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons came to the house of the Informant (PW-1) on 2.5.1989 and told him to plough his land but when he refused to do so for the 2 reason of his illness, the Appellant No. 1 is said to have set fire to his hut whereas the rest of the Appellants committed theft. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined four witnesses out of whom PW-1 is the Informant whereas PW-2 is his mother. PW-3 is the Doctor who examined the injured. The Investigating Officer has not been examined in the present case and in absence of any objective evidence with regard to the setting fire to the house of the Informant, it is difficult to sustain the conviction of the Appellants under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. In the result, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants under Sections 436/149 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside. However, their conviction under Section 147/323 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained but the sentence is modified to the period already undergone by them during trial. 5. The Appeal is partly allowed. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated, the 20th June, 2011. NAFR/S.ALI