Allowed¶15

Dunku Maraiya Dhanku Maraiya v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Jan 2025Cr.A(SJ)/424/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi; Criminal Appeal No. 424 of 2006; Dunku Maraiya @ Dhanku Maraiya v. State of Jharkhand; decided 09 January 2025; single judge (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.). Appeal against conviction under Section 436 IPC (Sessions Trial No. 86 of 2003, Fast Track Court No.-4, Deoghar; FIR Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 151 of 2002). Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence (R.I. three years, fine Rs.1,000/-) set aside — dwelling-house ingredient of S.436 IPC not proved, common object under S.149 IPC not proved, I.O. not examined, contradictions unexplained, no seizure list.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside; copy of the judgment with trial court record to be sent back to the court concerned. ¶15

Dunku Maraiya Dhanku Maraiya Vs State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside; copy of the judgment with trial court record to be sent back to the court concerned.

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction under Section 436 IPC is sustainable where the place set on fire was the informant's working place and not a dwelling house, and no household articles were burnt. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

There is no concrete evidence that household articles were burnt and there is no seizure list; the Investigating Officer was not examined, so contradictions in the evidence of witnesses remained unexplained, causing serious prejudice to the defence.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

It was not proved that the alleged house was a dwelling house of the informant.

¶13

Key takeaways

Though the appellant was held guilty as a member of an unlawful assembly with the aid of Section 149 IPC, the very common object of the appellant was not proved by the prosecution.ratio¶13
The learned trial court committed serious illegality while appreciating the evidence of witnesses and arrived at a wrong conclusion about the guilt of the appellants; consequently the impugned judgment and order of sentence are set aside.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal No. 424 of 2006 (High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi) — Dunku Maraiya @ Dhanku Maraiya v. State of Jharkhand — decided 09.01.2025 by Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. Appeal against conviction dated 22.03.2006 under Section 436 IPC and sentence dated 23.03.2006 (R.I. three years and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-4, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No. 86 of 2003. Allowed: the Court found no concrete evidence that household articles were burnt and no seizure list; the Investigating Officer was not examined, leaving contradictions in witness evidence unexplained to the serious prejudice of the defence; it was not proved that the alleged house was a dwelling house of the informant; and although the appellant had been held guilty with the aid of Section 149 IPC, his common object was not proved. The trial court was found to have committed serious illegality in appreciating the evidence and to have reached a wrong conclusion on guilt; the impugned judgment and order of sentence were set aside.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal No. 424 of 2006

¶2

[against the judgment of conviction dated 22.03.2006 and order of sentence dated 23.03.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-4, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No. 86 of 2003]

¶3

Dunku Maraiya @ Dhanku Maraiya, Son of Bhagwan Maraiya, resident of Village- Koli Pathar, P.S.- Mohanpur, District- Deoghar (Jharkhand).

¶4

….. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Respondent

¶5

For the Appellant : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P.

¶6

P R E S E N T

¶7

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶8

JUDGMENT

¶9

Dated: 09^th January, 2025

¶10

By Court: - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

2. Present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 22.03.2006 and order of sentence dated 23.03.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.-4, Deoghar, in Sessions Trial No. 86 of 2003, whereby and where under, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 436 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. of three years along with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.

¶12

Page 1 of 6

¶13

FACTUAL MATRIX

¶14

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow compass is that on 03.11.2002, at about 06:30 PM, the informant returned to his house from Hat (market) and saw that a quarrel was being going on between his wife and daughter with the wife of Chigar Maraiya and Metal Maraiya and they were quarreling in a very filthy language. In the meantime, appellant (Dunku Maraiya @ Dhanku Maraiya ) with the other persons came there and appellant, who has holding a match box, set fire to the place, where informant worked as an ironworker, resulting which mattress, straw and handle of hammer were burnt. Thereafter, when informant wanted to go to the police station at night, but at that time appellant and other persons were surrounded his house. The reason behind quarrel is that informant has already filed a complaint against the Chigar Maraiya.

¶15

4. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 151 of 2002, G.R. No. 634 of 2002 was registered for the offences under Sections 342/436/323/504/34 of the I.P.C.

¶16

Page 2 of 6

¶17

5. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer of the case has submitted charge sheet against accused for the offences under Sections persons

¶18

342/436/323/504/34 of the I.P.C. After taking cognizance of the offence, the case was committed to the court of Sessions trial. Thereafter, charges were framed for the offences under Sections 147, 342/149, 436/149, 323/149 of the I.P.C., which were denied by accused persons claiming to be tried.

¶19

6. After conclusion of trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as stated above.

¶20

7. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity. Learned trial court has also not considered the testimony of defence witnesses of this case. It is also not proved that the alleged house was used as dwelling house or for custody property. Appellant is only accused of setting fire to the house, but the under Section 436, which deals with crime of mischief by fire or any explosive with the intent to destroy the building, but the place, where appellant has set fire, is the working place of the informant. No household articles were burnt. Therefore, offence under Section 436 of the I.P.C. is not attracted in this case.

¶21

Page 3 of 6

¶22

8. Per contra, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid contentions and defended the judgment on merits.

¶23

9. It appears that in the course of trial six witnesses were examined by the prosecution:-

¶24

P.W.-1 : Gangadhar Kol (Son of informant) (Heresay witness)

¶25

P.W.-2 : Gunya Kumari (Daughter of informant). P.W.-3 : Kelku Maraiya (Independent witness).

¶26

P.W.-4 : Sohagi Devi (Wife of Informant). P.W.-5 : Bhajju Kol (informant).

¶27

P.W.-6 : Budhan Mandal.

¶28

10. Apart from oral evidence, following documentary evidences were also adduced.

¶29

Exhibit-1 : FIR. Exhibit-2 : Fardbayan.

¶30

11. On the other hand, the defence has also examined four witnesses.

¶31

D.W.-1 : Kameleshwar Maraiya.

¶32

D.W.-2 : Saral Kumar Sharma.

¶33

Page 4 of 6

¶34

D.W.-3 : Shiv Charan Sharma.

¶35

D.W.-4 : Sachit Sharma.

¶36

12. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment and order in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side.

¶37

13. It appears that there is no concrete evidence that the household articles were burnt and there is no seizure list. Since, I.O. has also not been examined. Therefore, contradictions appearing in the evidence of witnesses was kept unexplained which caused serious prejudiced to the defence. It is also not proved that the alleged house was a dwelling house of the informant. Moreover, the appellant has been held guilty as a member of unlawful assembly with the aid of Section 149 of the I.P.C., but the very common object of the appellant has not been proved by the prosecution.

¶38

14. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances the materials available on record, I find that the learned trial court has committed serious illegality while appreciating the evidence of witnesses and arrived a wrong conclusion about the guilt of the appellants. Therefore, impugned judgment and order of sentence of the appellant is hereby set aside.

¶39

Page 5 of 6

¶40

15. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.

¶41

16. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.

¶42

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶43

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. Dated: 09^th January, 2025. Simran/- NAFR

¶44

Page 6 of 6

Dunku Maraiya Dhanku Maraiya v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dunku Maraiya Dhanku Maraiya v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Shankar Swarnkar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Prayag Nayak Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Poki Mandal Vs State of Jharkhand

Rajesh Dey Dalal Alias Pintu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pankaj Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ram Singar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand