Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 897 (GAU)

Abdul Haque S/o. Abdul Latif v. State of Assam

2017-07-12

HITESH KUMAR SARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER : This is an criminal appeal, filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., against the judgment and order dated 21.02.2008, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj in Sessions Case No. 66/2006 convicting and sentencing the accused appellant with Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and a fine of Rs.5000/- with a default clause. 2. The prosecution case is that on 04.06.2006, the accused appellant set ablaze the dwelling house of the informant/PW1 in the midnight while she was sleeping. While the burning roof of the house was about to fall on her, she woke up, came out and found the accused appellant leaving the place of occurrence. 3. On the basis of the FIR lodged on the said facts, the police registered a case, investigated into it, collected evidence, and finally, submitted Charge-Sheet against the accused appellant under Section 436 of the IPC. 4. Occurrence under Section 436 of the IPC being triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the learned Court of Sessions Judge, Karimganj by the learned Committing Magistrate. After exhausting all the formalities, a formal Charge against the accused appellant was framed under Section 436 of the IPC, and then, the learned Trial Court proceeded to record evidence and completed the trial. 5. In this case, the prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses, including the Investigating Police Officer. The defence examined none. From the trend of cross-examination, it appears that the defence pleaded not only innocence but also denied the accusation leveled against the accused appellant. 6. On the basis of the evidence on record, this Court is required to see whether the accused appellant committed mischief by setting fire on the dwelling house of the informant/PW1. 7. For the decision of the above issues, the evidence on record has been carefully scanned. 8. It is found from the evidence of the PW1 herself that she did not see the accused appellant setting fire in her house. But, while she came out, she saw the accused fleeing from the place of occurrence. The other witnesses, PW2 and PW3 are the daughters of the PW1/informant residing in the same campus but in separate house. They came out of the house after hearing alarm raised by their mother PW1/informant. 9. But, while she came out, she saw the accused fleeing from the place of occurrence. The other witnesses, PW2 and PW3 are the daughters of the PW1/informant residing in the same campus but in separate house. They came out of the house after hearing alarm raised by their mother PW1/informant. 9. From the evidence on record, it is found to be in admitted position that there is no eye witness account of the occurrence. PW1/informant saw the accused fleeing from the place of occurrence, which is a circumstance supported by another circumstance that two days before the date of occurrence, the accused appellant threatened the PW1 that he would cause damage to them. This was because of the refusal of the second daughter of the PW1/informant to live with the accused appellant who has already married her elder sister. That means, the accused appellant wanted to keep his sister-in-law with him with a view to live together and refusal to such a proposal made the accused to cause damage to the dwelling house of the informant/PW1. 10. The evidence of the PW2 and PW3 appears to have not been assailed during the cross-examination and the same remained intact and unshaken. That being so, in spite of the fact that there is no eye witness account of the occurrence, the above two circumstances leads this Court to an irresistible conclusion that it was none but the accused appellant who set dwelling house of the informant/PW1 ablaze thereby attracting the provisions of Section 436 of the IPC. 11. In view of the above, I do not find any such infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid Sessions case necessitating interference by this Court. 12. Therefore, the judgment, aforesaid, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj is affirmed. The appeal is dismissed. 13. Return the LCR along with a copy of this judgment.