Janak Mahto And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand Th.M.Prajap

Chatra in S.T. No. 141 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 147 and 436 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 147 and five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 436 of the I.P.C.. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶28

Factual Matrix

¶29

3 . The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that a written report

¶30

(Exhibit-P1) was filed by Mahado Prajapati (P.W.4) on 07.08.2001 stating inter alia that on 06.08.2001 at about 12:00 at night, all the named accused persons armed with lathi, bhala and gadasa forcibly entered into his house and after assaulting inmates, dragged them out of the house and thereafter, on the order of Janak Mahto, accused Kanshi Mahto poured Kerosine oil and set fire in the house of the informant. It is further alleged that the cause of occurrence was illegal possession of accused persons over the land and house of the informant.

¶31

4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. The case was committed to court of Sessions and trial proceeded against appellants/accused persons. After conclusion of trial, appellants were held guilty and sentenced as stated above.

¶32

Page | 2

¶33

5. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned

¶34

judgment has submitted that initially the F.I.R. was registered in

¶35

this case as P.S. Case No. 34/01 wherein after thorough investigation, final form was submitted by the police showing the occurrence to be false. Thereafter, protest petition was filed by the informant/complainant and cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions and ultimately, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 147/436 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that the place of occurrence itself belong to the appellants and it is admitted by the informant in his evidence that there is a land dispute regarding the place of occurrence itself. It is

¶36

further submitted that the defence has also adduced evidence

¶37

showing that in respect of disputed property proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. was also initiated. Due to apprehension

¶38

of breach of peace on account of land dispute, a proceeding under Section 107 of the I.P.C. was also initiated between the parties. This

¶39

is out and out a false case. The learned trial court has miserably

¶40

failed to properly appreciate the evidence of defence and the

¶41

materials elicited in the cross-examination of the informant and

¶42

Page | 3

¶43

other witnesses favouring the case of the appellants. Therefore, conviction and sentence of appellants is absolutely illegal and beyond the evidence available on record which is fit to be set aside by allowing this appeal.

¶44

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has

¶45

opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that all the witnesses examined by the complainant have fully supported the charges leveled against the appellants and there is no material contradiction or infirmity in the crossexamination of the witnesses to disbelieve the prosecution story. The occurrence took place due to land dispute between the parties at the dead of night. The learned trial court has very wisely and aptly considered all the aspects of the case and materials available on record in passing the impugned judgment and order which suffers from no illegality. There is no valid reason to interference with the impugned judgment and order by way of this appeal which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed.

¶46

7. I have gone through the entire record of the case along with

¶47

impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of

¶48

both side.

¶49

Page | 4

¶50

It appears that initially the F.I.R. was lodged by the

¶51

informant in this case and after investigation, the case was found to be not true and final form was submitted by the police. The present case was initiated on the basis of protest-cum-complaint lodged by the complainant and ultimately, the appellants were held guilty and sentenced as stated above.

¶52

It appears from the evidence of complainant that proceedings under Sections 107 and 144 of the Cr.P.C. were initiated between the parties. It is also surfaced that the land under dispute was purchased by appellant Janak Mahto. There is no cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution showing that the disputed property was in possession of the informant party at

¶53

the time of relevant occurrence. No burnt article has been seized and what materials were destroyed in the burnt dwelling house has not been brought on record. Similarly, not a single person has sustained any kind of injuries. Therefore, it is quite obvious that the bone of contention between the parties lies in the purchase of

¶54

disputed property by the appellant Janak Mahto (deceased). The appellants have not been held guilty for causing any injury to any person of the informant party and there is simple conviction for

¶55

Page | 5

¶56

the offence under Section 436 of the I.P.C. The essential ingredient

¶57

of said offence is as under:

¶58

(i) Mischief by Fire or Explosive Substance:

¶59

The primary requirement is that the act must be intentional, and it must involve the use of fire or any explosive material. Accidental fires or explosions are not covered under this section.

¶60

(ii) Intent to Destroy or Damage Property: The offender must have the intent to destroy or damage a property. The damage must be to a building that serves specific functions such as a human dwelling, a place of worship, or a place used for the custody of property.

¶61

Types of Properties Covered:

¶62

Human Dwelling: Any residential structure where people live.

¶63

Place of Worship: Religious structures like temples, mosques, churches, etc.

¶64

Place for Custody of Property: Any building or warehouse where property or goods are stored.

¶65

8. In the instant case, the very subject matter of disputed land and house was in possession of accused persons, as admitted in the F.I.R. itself. No burnt articles were seized during investigation. Moreover, after investigation of case by police, the occurrence was found to be false. No better evidence has been led by the prosecution during trial to sustain the conviction of appellants for the offence under Section 436 of the I.P.C.

¶66

9. In view of the above discussions and reasons, I am of the firm view that learned trial court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record and arrived at wrong conclusion about the guilt of the appellants. Accordingly, this appeal is

¶67

Page | 6

¶68

allowed and impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Chatra in S.T. No. 141 of 2003 is hereby set aside and appellants are acquitted from charge.

¶69