JUDGMENT : Pankaj Purohit, J. This appeal is preferred by the appellants under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”) assailing the judgment and order dated 18.04.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/3rd Fast Track Court, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.329 of 1999, State vs. Surendra & another, whereby the said court has held the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 436, 304/34 & 429 IPC and sentenced each of them as follows:- S. No. Name of accused Conviction Sentence Fine Sentence in lieu of fine 1. Surendra 436 IPC 07 years’ R.I. Rs.5,000/- 06 months’ additional imprisonment 304 IPC 07 years’ R.I. Rs.5,000/- 06 months’ additional imprisonment 429 IPC 03 years’ R.I. Rs.2,000/- 02 months’ additional imprisonment. 2. Amar Singh 436 IPC 07 years’ R.I. Rs.5,000/- 06 months’ additional imprisonment 304/34 IPC 07 years’ R.I. Rs.5,000/- 06 months’ additional imprisonment 429 IPC 03 years’ R.I. Rs.2,000/- 02 months’ additional imprisonment. All the aforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. During the pendency of appeal, appellant no.2-Amar Singh has passed away on 22.09.2016. Hence, the present appeal stood abated against appellant no.2-Amar Singh. Now, the Court shall proceed to hear the appeal qua appellant no.1-Surendra. 3. The facts in nutshell are that PW1-Ram Singh lodged a report on 18.12.1998 at 08:45 a.m. after getting the same scribed from one Om Prakash at Police Station Laksar with the averments that in the intervening night of 17/18.12.1998 he along with his children was sleeping in the house while his cattle were tied in the shed meant for that purpose. At about 02:00 of the night, when he woke up, he saw the fire in the cowshed. On hearing the noise, he came towards the shed and saw that the appellants-Surendra and Amar Singh were running from the spot. On hearing the noise, several people from vicinity and his children reached on the spot who also saw the appellants running. After extinguishing the fire, in the light of shed some articles exploded due to which his grand-daughter-Amita and one calf sustained injuries and died on the spot, whereas people of vicinity, namely, Bijendra, Yashpal, Kripal, his wife-Sumeri (of informant) and grandson got injured. With these averments, the case was registered against the accused persons under Section 436 IPC. 4. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons. With these averments, the case was registered against the accused persons under Section 436 IPC. 4. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons. The charge was framed against the accused persons. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution produced as many as 13 witnesses to prove its case. Thereafter, the statements of accused perons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The trial court vide impugned judgment and order has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties extensively and carefully gone through the entire material available on record. 6. The case against the accused persons is that in the intervening night of 17/18.12.1998 at about 02:00 a.m. the accused persons set on fire the cow-shed of the informant with intention to commit mischief by fire, due to explosion of certain article burnt in the shed, grand-daughter of informant sustained injuries due to which she died on the spot and the calf of buffalo of informant was also died during the said incident. 7. PW1-Ram Singh, informant is the eye-witness of the case. On his examination he stated that the incident happened at 2 A.M. on 17/18-12-98. While he was sleeping in the room, he stated that just in front of his room there is a cattle shed. He stated that he was half awake and saw fire coming out from the cattle shed. He raised hue and cry and ran towards the shed. On hearing the noises, Kripal, Yahspal, Bijendra, Rishipal, my wife, my grandson Lokendra came with many other people. He saw accused Surendra and Amar Singh running after setting the cattle shed on fire. They took out the cattle from the shed and extinguished the fire. When they were extinguishing the fire there was an explosion. By this explosion his grand-daughter Amita and a calf got injured and died. His wife, Kripal, Bijendra, Yashpal, Lokendra got hit by pallets of the bomb. He lodged a FIR which was written by Om Prakash Pradhan which is Exhibit Ka-1. On seeing which, the witness stated this is the same FIR which has been signed by him. He further stated that in cross-examination that the FIR was written at home; he has a property dispute with Surendra which is going on since 1984-85. He lodged a FIR which was written by Om Prakash Pradhan which is Exhibit Ka-1. On seeing which, the witness stated this is the same FIR which has been signed by him. He further stated that in cross-examination that the FIR was written at home; he has a property dispute with Surendra which is going on since 1984-85. He further informed that SO visited his house at 9 AM on 18th. SO along with a Sub Inspector was at his home when he handed over the FIR. Sub Inspector did not record his statements. At the time of the incident, his wife and he woke at the same time. It was he who raised the hue and cry accusing these people. At the time of the incident, the animals were tied outside the shed. Only 14 animals were in the shed at that time. There were no wood, iron or machines inside the shed. The police reached the spot after 3 hours of the incident. This is incorrect to say that he has lodged false FIR as he has a dispute with the accused. The witness restated that photos were clicked on 18th. These photographs were clicked by Yogesh Bhahalpuri. He visited the house and clicked the photos at 8 AM and after 3-4 days, he handed over the photos. He did not take any receipt of the photos. Negatives were not supplied to me. There were many villagers when the photos were being taken. No image of any villager was captured and also there is no date on the photos. Photo was taken after 8 hours of the incident. No pipes were there at the time of the incident only leaves were there. Photographer is his grandson. This is false that because of litigation concerning the land he has falsely named the accused. 8. PW2-Kripal stated that the incident happened around 2AM 17/18-12-98. He woke up to pee and saw the buffalos roaming freely. He saw Amar Singh and Surendra leaving after lighting the shed on fire. It was a Kuchha House. On hearing hue and cry, villagers gathered. There were cattle near the spot of incident. They extinguished the fire. When they were extinguishing the fire, a piece from the bomb hit Ram Singh’s wife, him and two-three other people and also hit Ram Singh’s cattle. It caused death of Ram Singh’s granddaughter and a cow. It was a Kuchha House. On hearing hue and cry, villagers gathered. There were cattle near the spot of incident. They extinguished the fire. When they were extinguishing the fire, a piece from the bomb hit Ram Singh’s wife, him and two-three other people and also hit Ram Singh’s cattle. It caused death of Ram Singh’s granddaughter and a cow. When he saw Surendra and Amar Singh, the shed was ablazed on fire. This witness stated in cross-examination that he has a land dispute with the accused. This land is situated nearby the village. Surendra has filed a case against his family. When he woke up to pee he did not hear any noise and do not remember at what time he reached Ram Singh’s house. He had no interaction with anyone at Ram Singh’s house. He does not remember on which date he visited hospital for medical. He reached hospital at 12PM. He along with Bijendra, Yashpal and Ram Singh’s wife visited the hospital. He got injured at 2PM at 18/12/98. He received a wound in his neck. He went to Ram Singh’s house to save buffalo. He does not remember the exact time. Ram Singh’s children were also sleeping at that time. They again gathered at the spot of incident in the morning. He was at the spot of the incident when it happened, for 5-10 minutes and again slept after returning to house. 9. PW3-Jaichand is the witness of inquest. He stated that around 9 AM on 18/12/98 when the police reached the village, the police inquired and filled a Panchayatnama stating that a girl is dead. He does not remember the name of the victim but later the witness called it to be Amita. This witness identified his signature on Exhibit Ka-2. This witness further stated in cross-examination that the incident happened in night and the Panchayatnama was filed in the morning. The Sub inspector made him sign the Panchayatnama on around 8:45 AM. He was present there when the police arrived. He does not remember whether the police did the Panchayatnam proceedings after he came or whether it was already done. He was not made to read the Panchayatnama. He does not know about proceedings in the Panchayatnama. He was only made to sign it. After his sign no further proceedings were done it. He does not remember whether the police did the Panchayatnam proceedings after he came or whether it was already done. He was not made to read the Panchayatnama. He does not know about proceedings in the Panchayatnama. He was only made to sign it. After his sign no further proceedings were done it. It is wrong to say that proceedings in Panchayatnama were done after 11AM. 10. PW4-Smt. Sumeri is also stated to be eye-witness of the incident who has given eye-witness account of the occurrence. She has duly corroborated the evidence led by PW1. According to her, from the fire lit in the shed, some pallets were burst which hit her granddaughter-Amita, who died on the spot itself. She has identified both the appellants in the court. She also sustained injuries in this incident. 11. PW5-Lokendra has stated that at 2 AM when he woke up to pee, he heard some noises in the shed. He saw that Amar Singh and Surendra leaving after lighting the shed on fire. He raised hue and cry on hearing which his grandfather and grandmother Sumeri, uncle Rajkumar, father Ram Niwas woke up and a lot of villagers arrived at the incident spot. After sometime there was an explosion, which scattered and some pieces of the bomb hit his sister Amita, Sumeri, Yashpal, Kripal and Bijendra and him along with a buffalo. The pieces of the bomb injured his sister and the buffalo and both of them died on the spot. Rest all suffered minor injuries. The accused after seeing that the villagers have gathered ran from the spot. He along with grandmother and uncle went to the hospital in Haridwar. His X Ray was done and he along with grandmother were admitted in hospital. The witness identified the accused Surendra in the court who lit the shed on fire. In cross-examination, the witness stated that he has only signed his statements and nothing else. He shared that there was moonlight at the time of incident, and there were many villagers at the spot who gathered after hearing his hue and cry. His medical examination was done in the morning. At the time of the incident he along with his grandmother, grandfather and sister were sleeping. Our shed is five steps away from that spot. He was the first person who woke up. The incident happened at 2 AM on 17th. His medical examination was done in the morning. At the time of the incident he along with his grandmother, grandfather and sister were sleeping. Our shed is five steps away from that spot. He was the first person who woke up. The incident happened at 2 AM on 17th. The police reached around about 7AM. The Sub Inspector took his statement and also of his grandfather, grandmother and villagers. His grandfather lodged the FIR after that they went to the hospital. Only cattle were there in the shed and nothing else. Kripal reached the spot after hearing the noises after 10-12 minutes of the incident. He went half an hour after extinguishing the fire. The photos were taken by Yogesh who is his brother’s son. Photos were taken before police arrived. 12. PW-6 Rishipal stated that he was awake at 2AM on 17-18/12/98.Villagers were shouting that shed has caught fire. When he reached at the place of incident, he saw Amar singh and Surendra coming from that spot. They extinguished the fire. Along with him, Kripal, Ram Singh, his family members, Sumeri, Ram Nivas, Raj Kumar, Amita were present at the place of incident. The explosion happened due to which pieces of iron hit people standing nearby injuring them and killing Amita and calf. The witness identified Surendra and Amar Singh who were present in the court confirming that these were the persons who were coming from the place of the incident. He further stated in cross-examination that this incident happened at 2 AM. Every person at the spot stated that they came after hearing the noises. He stated that he is not aware which cattle were present in the shed. He also stated that he did not inform about the explosion. Yashpal reached the place after him. Lokendra’s house is situated at the place of incident. Yashpal did not bring Lokendra along with him. He did not see Lokendra, Ram Singh and Sumeri coming because they had left at the spot. Amita’s house is near Sumeri’s house as she is her granddaughter. He did not inform the Sub Inspector that there could have been an iron substance present which blasted because of fire. He also didn’t tell him that iron pieces found at the place of incident looked like a part of a band or pipe. He did not see any pieces lying at the spot. He did not inform the Sub Inspector that there could have been an iron substance present which blasted because of fire. He also didn’t tell him that iron pieces found at the place of incident looked like a part of a band or pipe. He did not see any pieces lying at the spot. When he reached the spot, they extinguished the fire by pushing the shed down to the ground. He along with Bijendra, Yashpal and other villagers pushed the shed down. He had neighbourly relations with Ram Singh. Sumeri was not standing under the Neem tree. The buffalo was lying dead in the shed. They pushed the shed towards South. There is no public way towards North. 13. PW7-Dr. S.K. Arora is the Veterinary Officer who conducted post-mortem over the calf who died in the incident. 14. PW8-Dr. P.K. Bhattnagar is the Medical Officer who conducted examination of the injuries sustained by injured persons. 15. PW9-Dr. R.K. Pandey is prepared the ex-ray report. 16. PW10-Head Constable Mahipal Singh is a formal witness. 17. PW11-Dr. Rajeev Sharma is the Medical Officer who conducted post mortem examination on the body of deceased-Amita who was eight years of age at the time of incident. Five ante mortem injuries were found on her body. In the opinion of Medical Officer, the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to ante mortem explosive injuries. 18. PW13-O.P. Sisodhiya is the Investigating Officer of the case. 19. The present case is based upon direct evidence and it is not based on circumstantial evidence. It has consistently been the case of prosecution that there was previous land enmity between the accused and informant since 1984-1985. On the alleged date, place and time of occurrence the accused persons lit the fire on the cow-shed of the informant. The accused persons were seen at the relevant time by PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5 & PW6. PW5-Lokendra has clearly stated in the incident that on the relevant day when he woke up to answer the call of nature, he heard some sound in the shed and saw that appellants lit the fire. On hearing the alarm raised by him other people also woke up. 20. PW6-Rishipal is the independent witness of the case who has duly corroborated the prosecution story. 21. On hearing the alarm raised by him other people also woke up. 20. PW6-Rishipal is the independent witness of the case who has duly corroborated the prosecution story. 21. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the charge against the appellants is that they had put the cow-shed on fire in which the granddaughter of Ram Singh namely Amita along with one calf had died. It is strenuously argued by learned counsel for the appellants that had the appellants actually lit the fire, then they would not have stayed on the place of occurrence only to be seen and identified by the alleged eye-witnesses and hence their presence on the place of occurrence is not proved beyond doubt. 22. However, from the evidence available on record as also the direct eye witness account available in the present case which has unequivocally pointed out towards the guilt of the accused appellants in commission of the crime, there is no manner of doubt to believe that the appellants were not involved in the incident. It needs to be mentioned at this stage that the eye witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross examination at the hands of defence counsel but nothing could be elicited from them so as to caste any doubt in their testimony. The eye witness account given by the eye-witnesses is believable, reliable and quite reasonable also and there is no ground to disbelieve the same. The defence failed to impeach the testimony of the prosecution witnesses in material particulars and all the eye-witnesses have been consistent in their testimonies on the material particulars. 23. The accused persons committed mischief by fire which resulted in the explosion of some article kept inside the chow-shed knowing it to be likely that they will there by cause damage to the property of the informant. Due to that explosion, the granddaughter of PW1 (Amita) also sustained injuries and she ultimately died. One calf also died in that incident. The Medical Officer, PW11-Dr. Rajeev Sharma who conducted post-mortem on the body of deceased has clearly held out in the post mortem report that the cause of death was due to ante-mortem explosive injuries. In that incident, remaining injured persons, namely, Yashpal, Bijendra, Lokendra, Smt. Sumeri and Kripal and several other persons also sustained injuries. Those witnesses were medically examined by PW8 also. Rajeev Sharma who conducted post-mortem on the body of deceased has clearly held out in the post mortem report that the cause of death was due to ante-mortem explosive injuries. In that incident, remaining injured persons, namely, Yashpal, Bijendra, Lokendra, Smt. Sumeri and Kripal and several other persons also sustained injuries. Those witnesses were medically examined by PW8 also. It has also come in evidence that a deck-chune pipe was also kept on the spot which had busted and its pieces hit the granddaughter of informant named-Amita who also succumbed to those injuries. 24. It needs to be mentioned at this stage that the prosecution witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination at the hands of defence counsel, but nothing substantial could emanate so as to cause any doubt on the prosecution story. The witnesses produced by the prosecution have been consistent. There has been no material contradiction in their testimony. They are the natural and direct eye-witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellants could not point out any material irregularity in the judgment passed by the trial court. 25. Thus, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The judgment and order dated 18.04.2007 passed by learned trial court convicting and sentencing the appellants is hereby affirmed. 26. Appellant no.1-Surendra is on bail. His bail is cancelled. Sureties discharged. Appellant no.1-Surendra shall surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence imposed upon him by the learned trial court. Appellant no.2-Amar Singh expired during the pendency of the present appeal and accordingly, the appeal qua him was abated as mentioned in para no.2 of this judgment. 27. Registry to send a copy of this judgment along with the TCR to the court concerned for information and compliance.