Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 666 (PAT)

Raj Kumar Rai, Son Of Kapil Roy v. State Of Bihar

2011-04-19

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2011
JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. Heard. 2. The Appellant has been convicted under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment as also under Section 327 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 15 days passed by the Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, in Sessions Trial No. 216 of 1994 by a judgment dated 23.3.1995. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 31.3.1994 at about 4.00 A.M. when the Informant (P.W. 1) and his wife (P.W. 2) were in the hut the accused persons came there and asked them to work in their field and on their refusal to do so, the accused persons are said to have set fire to the hut of the Informant. 4. The prosecution in all examined nine witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 is the Informant whereas P.W. 2 is the wife of the Informant. P.W. 3 is the Doctor who examined the injury of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 are seizure list witnesses. P.W. 8 is the Investigating Officer whereas P.W. 7 and 9 have been tendered. 5. The defence on its behalf examined nine witnesses mainly on the ground that in fact, the Informant has set fire on his hut himself on account of it having been constructed upon government property and a dispute that had arisen on account of it and the Appellants have been falsely implicated. 6. On going through the evidence of P.W. 1 and 2, I find that there is completely consistency that the Appellant had set fire to the hut of the Informant. 7. The Investigating Officer P.W. 8 also found remnants of ashes and such objective evidence corroborating the oral evidence of P.W. 1 and 2. The Doctor further found signs of injury on both the injured which further corroborated the prosecution case. 8. In view of such, finding no merit in the Appeal, the same is dismissed. However, it appears that the Appellant has remained in custody for 14 months during trial and, therefore, the sentence is converted to one that has already been undergone by him during trial. 9. With this modification in sentence, the Appeal is dismissed.