Criminal Appeal No.121 OF 1995 (S.J.) [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.7.1995 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea in Sessions Trial No.66 of 1989/ 97 of 1991] 1. SK. TAIYAB, SON OF LATE SHEKHAWAT 2. SK. BADO @ BADRUDDIN S/O MD. ZAINUDDIN 3. SK. MANSOOR, S/O SK. REHAT @ REYAZUDDIN 4. SK. ISLAM, S/O SK. IBRAHIM 5. KAMAL NAYAN SAH @ KAMAL LAL SAH S/O KUSUM LAL SAH 6. BHIM LAL SAH @ RAJINDRA SAH S/O VISHAN LAL SAH, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAE BATURBARI 7. IRFAN S/O SK. FASAD 8.PHULCHAND @ ZAHIR S/O LUQMAN, BOTH RESIDENTS OF JHAMTA, ALL P.S. TARABARI, DISTRICT ARARIA ………. Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ………….. Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. Vikramdeo Singh, Advocate Mr. Md. Bahauddin, Advocate Mr. M.Z. Quamar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Aslam Ansari, Addl. P.P. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The appellants have been convicted u/s.436/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for one years and also directed to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of which further R.I. for six months by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea in Sessions Trial No.66 of 1989/ 97 of 1991 by a judgment dated 11.7.1995. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 8.4.1986 at about 10.30 P.M. the accused persons came to the house of the informant and asked him to come out to the house and when he - 2 - refused to do so, his house was burnt along with the house of one Bipti Devi. 3. The prosecution in all examined eleven witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.9 and P.W.10 are the witnesses on the factum of occurrence, whereas P.W.4 and P.W.8 have been tendered. P.W.11 is the Investigating Officer. 4. On behalf of the defence, one witness was examined on the point that in fact the huts had been accidentally burnt and they had claimed compensation from the Government on account of the same. 5. On going through the evidence of the witnesses, I find that the prosecution case is that the accused persons came to the house of Rati Chand and asked him to come out and when he failed to do so appellant Taiyab ordered Aslam to set fire in the house, on account of which the house of the informant had to be burnt. It does not stand to reason as to how the occurrence would be seen when the prosecution witnesses were inside the house and, therefore, I am not inclined to accept the prosecution case as having been proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellants had participated in burning the huts of the informant and Bipti Devi. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants on 11.7.1995 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea in - 3 - Sessions Trial No.66 of 1989/ 97 of 1991 is set aside. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. Patna High Court Dated, 12th May, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )