Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 145 (JHR)

Rohan Kol v. State Of Jharkhand

2020-01-22

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2020
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - Heard Ms. Amrita Sinha learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 05.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Deoghar in connection with S.T. No. 43 of 2006, by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine he was directed to further undergo S.I. for two months. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 02.06.2005 when the informant came back home from Madhupur after getting his pension from State Bank of India he had gone towards the river for taking bath. On hearing a cry of alarm he had come back and had seen that his house was burning and persons present were trying to douse the fire. His younger daughter-in-law had disclosed that at about 4.00 P.M. the appellant was abusing and he was trying to cause fire which resulted in the house of the informant catching fire. On account of the act of the appellant the entire belongings of the informant were put to ashes. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Madhupur P.S. Case No. 109/2005 was instituted. After investigation charge sheet was submitted under Sections 436 and 427 of the Indian penal Code and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charge was framed under Sections 436/427 I.P.C. 5. In course of trial seven witnesses were examined. The appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he had denied the allegations levelled against him. The learned trial court vide judgment dated 05.03.2019 passed in S.T. No. 43 of 2006 had convicted the appellant for the offence u/s 427 I.P.C. and had sentenced him accordingly. 6. Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the evidence of the witnesses and has stated that it was the appellant who had put fire on his own house and due to the westerly wind the house of the informant accidentally caught fire. 6. Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the evidence of the witnesses and has stated that it was the appellant who had put fire on his own house and due to the westerly wind the house of the informant accidentally caught fire. It has further been stated that the appellant neither had the intent nor had the knowledge to cause mischief so as to come within the definition of mischief u/s 425 I.P.C. It has further been stated that only on account of the haystack which was kept in the alley between the house of the appellant and the house of the informant the incident of fire having engulfed the house of the informant had occurred. It has further been stated that the appellant has already completed his sentence and has thereafter been released from custody. 7. Ms. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer made by the appellant and has stated that the appellant while putting fire on his house had the knowledge that such act on his part would cause damage to the house of the informant and therefore on such parameters learned trial court had rightly convicted the appellant for the offence u/s 427 I.P.C. 8. On consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the respective sides the Lower Court Records have been perused. 9. It appears that there are several eye-witnesses namely P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.4 who have stated categorically that it was the appellant who had put fire on his own house after taking out all the house hold articles and subsequently due to westerly wind the house of the informant also caught fire. The son of the informant has been examined as P.W.3 and although he is not an eye-witness but he has also corroborated the aforesaid facts. However, the wife of the informant namely Devni Devi has been examined as P.W.4 who is an eye-witness and who has stated as indicated above. The Investigating Officer has been examined as P.W.7 and he has also given a description of the place of occurrence and it appears that the house of the informant is situated at a distance of six feet from the house of the appellant and in between the house there is an alley in which haystacks were kept. 10. The Investigating Officer has been examined as P.W.7 and he has also given a description of the place of occurrence and it appears that the house of the informant is situated at a distance of six feet from the house of the appellant and in between the house there is an alley in which haystacks were kept. 10. Since learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the act of the appellant does not come within the definition of mischief u/s 425 I.P.C. as such the aforesaid provision has been perused. The provision speaks that there must be an intent or a knowledge of wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person and such damage and destruction would diminish its value or utility. 11. The appellant was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. but nothing has been stated by him as to what was the circumstances which led to his putting fire on his own house. Whatever may be the reasons the prosecution has been able to establish that it was the appellant who had put fire on his own house and resultantly the house of the informant also got burnt. It therefore cannot be said that there was an intention or for that matter any knowledge on the part of the appellant that such act on his part would result in the house of the informant being engulfed by fire. If at all there was any intention on the part of the appellant to commit damage to the house of the informant he had other options available to him but merely because on account of a natural cause the house of the informant caught fire cannot lead to indictment of the appellant that he had a knowledge or an intent that the resultant effect of the fire being put to his house would affect the informant. It can therefore be concluded that the appellant did not have any intent or knowledge with respect to the resultant effect of his act and in such circumstances therefore the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant deserves to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 05.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Deoghar in connection with S.T. No. 43 of 2006, is hereby set aside.