Bffr XI-HC-22 -^si '^Wv\<J{, vixAwi^. h'lwy. •Y 'sn^T^ii f?^ 3Ilt?' **<iqi 'SfW aiii^i'g^nw ^if%g HIGH COURT OF CHltATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRIMINAL APflEAL N0.627 /2004 APPELLANT (IN JAIL) <f. RESPONDENT Present: Mr. Hemant Kesharwl. Mr. Arun Sao, GA fo4 ORAL Dhlrendra Mishra, J This appeal is dir^ conviction and order of passed in S.T.No. 209/03] (Atrocities) Bilaspur has 436 of the IPC and sentenct and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/) undergo additional RI for on\ 'WT?ff"? fsl3t Tf«R?R i? siNq 3nt?i ERSUS RAMNIHORA S/C RAMADHAR AGE 3C YEARS R/0 VILLAGE JOK: P/S. CHAKARBHAT/i DISTT. BILASPUR (CG) STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH : P.S. CHAKARGHATA BILASPUR. DISTT. BILASPUR (C.G.) ani, counsel for the appellant. the State/respondent. JUDGMENT (27* Sebtember 2007) :cted against the judgment of se|ntence dated 29th Januaiy 2004 whereby learned Special Court cor|victed the appellant under Secdon ^d hira to undergo RI for 10 years 1-, in default of payment of fine to raonth. XI-HC-22 -ysf ^ll^ld^, 'S^frOTS. WMl'yy 3Iit?r^)i fs'Twsn^i *<-ii°h 'Hfi^ SII^T'?RIIW ^aittT i. ^WvS'? fSfS <h>]'td]< ^T srfigr 3iii?i wherdin 2. Case of the prosecutic^n Kanchanbai (PW-1), mother Ex.P/4 was recorded date of incident appell^nt about 2.00 p.m. in an iriebri^ in filthy language and claimi^ of her house belongs to him ^ brought kerosene oil from wall with pickaxe, spread on fire with the matchsticy. family members extinguishe^l did not come forward on ac< also threw her on the groun^l, On the basis of Dehati Report of Ex.P/7 was record under Sections 436, 294, 50$ in brief is that on the report of |of the appellant, Dehati Nalishi of it was mentioned that on the Bamnihora came to her house at [^ited condition, started abusing her i^ig that the house situated in front ^nd he shall set that house on fire, house and after damaging the oil over the house and set it Her son Ramgopal and other the fire. However, the villagers ;ount of fear of the appellant. He 1, pressed her neck and beat her. djishi of Ex.P/4, First Informadon lin the Police Station Chakarbhata '6 and 323 of the IPC. His keriosene Naltishi 3. During investigation vide Ex.P/1. The compl^inant examination to District Hospjital, Sen (PW-4) examined the co^ Ex.P/3. Site plan of Ex.p completing investigation ch^rgf appellant in the Court of ^pot Panchanama was prepared was sent for medical 1, Bilaspur where Dr. (Smt.) M. Inplainant and gave her report of |P/5 was also prepared. After ^rge sheet was filed against the IJudicial Magistrate First Class, i!^" XI-HC-22 -SST ^|A||CI<<, d^l'y'iii. (si<ii*<i'!- 23A?I^iI j teiai'3Ilt;?T i ^~^N)' ^r^ 3]]^r-g^iTWHftCT ^TSitcT^'f ^t^^fl ^ tSt^t <^'^.!< ^T aif^lq 3I]^?[ Bilaspur and after coramittal the same was received on transfer by leamed Special Court for |:rial. 4. During trial the pro^ec his statement under Seot'ioil pleaded innocence and fal^e defence witness Ram Gopajl Court after hearing counsel and sentenced the accui( paragraph 1 of this judginen^ 5. Learned counsel for t}ie appellant submits that for the purposes of conviction upder Section 436 of IPC, the prosecution is required to committed by the accused,| building which is ordinarily human dwelling or as a plac^ allegedly set on Hre by the Kotha and there is no evidenl of the purposes described in argued that except the comp] :ution examined five witnesses. In 313 of the Cr.P.C. the appellant implication and also examined Yadav. However, leamed trial ror the respective parties convicted ied/appellant as mentioned in prove that mischief by fire was resulting in destruction of any Lised as a place of worship or as a for custody of property. However, in the instant case from pe^usal of spot Panchanama as also the site plan, it would be ejvident that the house which was 'appellant, has been described as ce that the saine was used for any Section 436 Qf the IPC. He further ainant and her husband, no other independent witness, thougl|i available, was examined by the prosecution and since th^re was a dispute between the 4- XI-HC-22 -^SI -^W\V\^, iSflltl'IC. fa'tl'My snt^T^r IqTCTtRT 'Hftd ani^T'^raiw: ^HfN complainant and the appell^nt he has been falsely implicate|d 6. On the other, hatid, learned counsel for the impugned judgraent of the trial 4.1. State/respondent sup'^iorte^ Court. • 7. I have heard learned perused the material av; impugned judgment. |counsel for the parties and have a]ilable on record including the 8. Conviction of the appe| PW-1 Kanchanbai and PW-^ the appellant, respectively. 9. PW-1 Kanchanbail, categorically stated that theije their sons reside separately.) son Santosh. Accused has ^i had received in partition anc} beating her after consuming| the afternoon when she waj accused came from Bilas^i started abusing her in filthy| Her husband came to save hi Out of fear of the appellanl 4-IHdf ^ 'i^'<Cl •d^-t-ri.K ^? srfigii aii^i in relation to partition matter, in the above offence. lant is based on the statements of Ramadhar, mother and father of |mother of the appellant, has is a partition in their family and She is residing with her younger \o\A the agricultural filed which he he is in the habit of abusing and lliquor. On the date of incident in ^ in her home with her husband, (ur after consuming liquor and languageand chased her to beat. ;r, whereupon he also chased him. both of thein hid theniselves in XI-HC-22 -FSI -^fraRTiT. 'S^TTS. ^riltiii^ sn^H^ feia?3nt?i ?h'^!ch '^fi^r a:n^?l ??<ITW ^lfStT f ^PlfepfhT'RTERff'? fSiSt ^RSR ^T SIRTIT aii^r the alnd their house. Thereafter, spread it over the house matchstick. On being neighbourers did not CQpe ^: also remained inside the completely burnt, resulting Somebody froin the village which police arrived there container of kerosene, matcl She denied the suggestion her son together set their that she was ready to accused gave the land whicli On the contrary, she has such proposal, which was d^ corroborated by the stateme^it the complainant and father accused brought kerosene oil, land set the house on fire with t|hreatened by the accused, the jbrward to extinguish fire and they House out of fear. The roof was |in loss of Rs.3,000/- to 4,000/-. (;elephoned to police station, upon recorded her report, seized the tisticks and bumt part of the roof. 1[hat she herself, her husband and House on fire. She has also denied on the condition that the had fallen in his share to them. that in fact the accused made ;clined by her. Her version is duly of P.W.-2 Ramadhar, husband of 4f the appellant. comfromise st^ted h4s 10. P.W.-2 Ramadhar caught fire, the roof was cojmplf there from the backside of tl-leir Tiwari has also said that he Animal Bam part of Kanch|anbai Dr. Smt. M. Sen, who that the complainant was stated that after their house 3Jmpletely bumt and they^fled froin l-(eir house. P.W.-3 Chandraprakash bas seen the house of Kanchanbai. ilanbais house was burnt. P.W.4, the complainant, has stated cfomplaining pain over both of her exanhined XI-HC-22 ~S^ -ill-Mld'4. ^'fly'l'S. fafll'ay 3II^;qiT 'f^TisFME?! ?i7i:lTO^lft?I sn^i'g^irw: ^iftg c. wrists, neck and chest. How^ver, there was no apparent injury over her person. 11. P.W.-5, J. K. Rath(»re, A.S.I. has stated that on telephonic information,i.S.H prepared the Panchnama of Kerosene oil coritainer. The brother of the appellant and that veranda of the house ^T^f^l4l*{ ^TFfcif ^ ^^S ^^i< ^? sri;aii 3ii^[ O. directed him to go to village Joki, whereupon he reache|d the house of Kanchanbai and Ex. P/l . The roof of animal barn was bumt. He has also effected seizure of matchstick and |defence witness Ramgopal Yadav, !son of the complainant has stated of his father was set on fire. However, he does not know ^.s to who set the same on fire and his parents also did not tell fiim as to who has set the veranda on fire. A small portion of tf-ie veranda was set on iire. Kotha was not set on fire. statenbents d nce 12. Thus, from the also froin the statement of is established that dwelling 1-^ouse Kanchanbai, was set on fire. of P.W.-l Ss P.W.-2 and as witness Ramgopal Yadav, it belonging to the coruplainant 13. So far as the involverE|ent of the appellant in setting on fire the dwelling house of t(ie complainant is concerned, his own mother and father hal sequence of events and the| 1 e categorically stated the whole background in which the house was set on fire by the appell^nt on the date of incident. As far XI-HC-22 -^si ^||i)id<<, ^fll+f'is. r»«ll'M>j,< sn^i^ii R? 3115?! '^(ft^I \L, STI^I ?'R1TW;Hfef ^ as Defence of the.appellant| husband and son Santosh and lodged a false report partition related dii5pute| consideration the fact that appellant have deposed aga| their version making seriou^ can not be doubted. There impugned judgment of the t| under Section 436 of the I.P.1 that in fact the complainant, her themselves set their house on fire ^gainst him on account of some is concerned, taking into Ithe mother and the father of the (inst their own son i.e. appellant, allegations against the appellant ]is no illegality or infirinity in the -ial Court convicting the appellant 14. Considering the overa|ll case and the evidence avaiUI considered opinion that endj jail sentence of 10 years R.I. trial Court under Section 43$ R.I. tHe 15. In the result, the maintaining conviction of the I.P.C., the jail sentence for7years. However, the fm t:hrahv1'4l'< ^l^<??f "^ fs^l ^Fil^R ^T srf^ an^r facts and circunistances of the tble on record, this Court is of the of justice would be served if the |imposed upon the appellant by the of the I.P.C. is reduced to 7 years appeal partly succeeds. While appellant under Section 436 of ]of 10 years R.I. is reduced to R.I. sentence shall remain as it is. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Fqt'5 ;: