High Court · 2012

On 21.4.2002 at about 1 A.M. in the morning, when Musstt Joitun Bibi (PW-1) was sleeping in her house, the accused Md. Abdul Rafique trespassed into the compoun d of her house, woke her up from sleep. Thereafter, the accused set the house of PW-1 on fire. As a result of which, the house of PW-1 including all her househo ld goods were completely destroyed in fire, causing thereby a loss of about Rs.3 000/-. When the PW-1, raised hue and cry, local residents of the area gathered a t the place of incident, whereupon the accused fled away from the scene of occur rence. PW-1 stated that lodging of the FIR was delayed as she had to remain busy to take care of her shelter as she became house less and helpless when her hous e was gutted by fire.

3. The FIR lodged by PW-1 at Nilambazar Out Post under Karimganj Police Sta tion was registered and investigation of the case was launched. The Investigatin g Police Officer (I.O) on completion of the investigation, submitted charge shee t against the accused under Section 436 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge on receipt of the case for trial, framed char 4. ge under Section 436 IPC against the accused. On reading over and explaining the charge, the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined as many as sev en (7) witnesses, including the Investigating Officer, during trial. On completi on of the recording of the prosecution the accused was examined under Section 31 3 CrPC. In his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had commit ted the offence alleged. The defence plea of the accused is that of total denial . The accused declined to adduce evidence in defence. The accused however, took the plea that the complainant had borrowed a s 5. um of Rs.3,000/- from the accused and when the amount was demanded she filed thi s present case, falsely implicating him, for the commission of the alleged offen ce. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted and senten ced the accused-appellant as aforesaid giving rise to this appeal.

6. We have heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. S. Das, learned Addl. P.P.

7. In order to appreciate the grounds of appeal and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Addl. P.P., it would be apposite to cull out the evidence on record including the testimony of impor tant witness of the prosecution.

8. The prosecution case revolve round the evidence adduced by the eye witne sses, PW-1, Musstt Joitun Bibi, who is also the victim of the incident. At the t ime of the occurrence, PW-1 was sleeping with her daughter PW-4, Musstt Husna Be gum. The evidence of PW-1 reveals that on the date of occurrence at about 2.30 A .M. to 3 A.M. in the wee hours, on being called by the accused, she woke up from sleep. The accused asked her to open the door of her house. As soon as she open ed the door, the accused put her house on fire. As a result of which, her said h ouse including all articles kept inside were burnt down causing her loss of Rs.3 ,000/-.

9. PW-1 stated that she somehow managed to come out of her house taking her younger daughter Hasna Begum (PW-4) with her to save their life. When she raise d hulla, neighbouring people came to the place of occurrence and tried to put ou t the fire. However, they did not succeed to do so. PW-1 further clarified that after her only house was burnt down, she became helpless and thus failed to file a written ’Ejahar’ before the Police Station immediately. The defence counsel c ross-examined the witness thoroughly but failed to elicit anything substantial i n support of the defence. In her cross-examination, PW-1 clarified that she gave her daughter Husna Begum (PW-4) in marriage to accused before the incident, but Husna could live with him only for a year. PW-1 denied the defence suggestion t hat the accused did not set her house on fire and she had falsely implicated the accused for the commission of offence, when the accused had demanded Rs.3,000/- taken by her on loan.

10. PW-4 Musstt Husna Begum, the daughter of PW-1, fully corroborated the ev idence of PW-1 in material particulars regarding the incident that took place on the relevant date and time. PW-4 stated that the accused came and called her in itially and asked her to open the door, but she did not reply. However, her moth er on hearing the call of the accused opened the door.

11. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-4 clearly depicted that the accused came to the residence of the first informant, (PW-1) woke them up, and after they woke u p, set the house on fire. PW-4 corroborates the claim of her mother PW-1, that t he accused put the dwelling house on fire as a result of which the house with al l the articles were burnt down and that on hulla being raised by them the nearby people also came to the P.O. PW-4 specifically indicated in her deposition that the accused put the fire in the dwelling house with the help of a safety match.

12. PW-4 only gives a more detailed description as to the manner in which t he dwelling house was set on fire, by the accused. PW-4 also says that the neigh bours were told about the incident which corroborates the claim of PW-1 on mater ial particulars. During cross-examined PW-4 says that though she got married wit h the accused four years prior to the incident, she could live with him for only six months with him, and thereafter, she returned to her mother’s house. Accord ing to PW-4, there were aluminium utensils, three deksis and 8/10 other utensils in the house and all the utensils were completely burnt down in the incident. S he does not support the claim of her mother (i.e. PW-1) that one iron ’kerahi’ w as not destroyed in the incident but she does support the claim of her mother PW -1 that their cooking apparels and utensils etc. were destroyed by the fire. Thi s omission in our view, is too minor to effect the prosecution’s case in advers e manner.

13. PW-4 further stated that one Anil Deb, who resided on the adjacent South of her house, while Moinuddin resided on the adjacent North and the said Moinud din came to the P.O. after the incident. PW-4 clarified that the roof of her hou se is at a height of about 5/6 cubits from the ground which makes it possible f or a man with average height to lit fire on the roof directly. According to the PW-4, the night was a dark one and after being called by the accused she and her mother lighted a lamp. Though as mentioned earlier, PW-1 does not say anything in her deposition supporting the claim of PW-4, that a lamp was lighted at the t ime of opening the door of the house, however, considering the facts and circums tances, since the incident took place at 2.30/3.00 hours of the night and that i t was a dark night, we do not find anything unusual for PW-1 to light up a lamp at the time of opening the door of the house. We find no reason to disbelieve th e testimony of PW-4 though PW-1 did not say so in so many words in her depositio n. Though the said lamp was not seized by police, but PW-4 herself saw the accus ed putting the house on fire after taking match from his pocket. According to PW -4 the accused put fire on the Western side of the house and fled away. She deni es the defence suggestion that the accused did not put the house on fire and tha t she had deposed falsely. It is apparent from the depositions of PW-1 and PW-4 that PW-4 was married to accused Md Abdul Rafique, four years prior to the incid ent but their married life was very short, they lived together only for 6 (six) months and this fact is not challenged by the defence during the cross examinati on of PW-1 and PW-4. So, we do not find any reason to doubt the veracity of the claims of PW-1 and PW-4 that PW-4 was residing with her mother PW-1 at the time of the incident. The natural shelter of a daughter is the house of her parents w hen her conjugal life is disoriented.

14. PW-2 Samarendra Deb and PW-3 Subadh Chandra Das claim themselves to be n eigbours of the victims i.e. of PW-1 and PW-4. The evidence of PW-2 reveals that at about 1.30/2.00 hours of the night, when he was sleeping in his house, heard hulla out side PW-2, came out of the house and saw the house of PW-1 Joytun Bib i on fire. He made vain attempt to put out the fire, but the house burnt down co mpletely. He met PW-1, her daughter PW-4 and other villagers at the place of occ urrence and he came to know from PW-1 and PW-4 that it was the accused, who set fire at their dwelling house.

15. On the other hand, the evidence adduced by PW-3 shows that on the night of occurrence at about 2.00/2.30 hours he heard hulla from the place of the occu rrence, situated at the Eastern side of his house, but he did not come out of th e house during the night. On the next day he saw that the house of PW-1 had been burnt down and PW-1 told him that on the previous night at the relevant time th e accused burnt down her only dwelling house. Thus both PW-2 and PW-3 claim that PW-1 (and also PW-4) told them about the incident which corroborates the claims of PW-1 and PW-4 that the neighbours were told about the incident.

16. The evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 also reveal that the I.O. seized some burn t piece of bamboo and some burnt thatch from the place of occurrence in their pr esence vide Ext 1 seizure list, wherein Ext 1(1) and Ext 1(2) are the signatures of PW-2 and PW-3 respectively. Md. Rejak Ali (PW-5) stated that he did not know either Joytun Bibi or t 17. he accused Md. Rafique Ali. However, PW-5 stated that she was called by Joytun, he could see the house of Joytun on fire. PW-5 also proved the seizure of burnt pieces of bamboo, wood etc. of the house of Joytun. This witness was declared ho stile and cross examined by the prosecution counsel.

18. PW-6 is Syed Moinul Haque (Moyna) is the writer of the ejahar. He suppor ts the claim of PW-1, victim informant on the fact when he says that on 27.4.200 2 on being asked by PW-1, he wrote the ejahar (i.e. Ext-2), according to her ve rsion and as told by her. PW-6 also pointed out that it was mentioned in the ’ej ahar’ also that as she had to remain busy with the after effect of the incident, she could not file the ejahar on time. PW-6 proved Ext 2(1) as his signature in Ext-2 as the writer thereof and says that PW-1 victim gave her thumb impression in Ext-2 in his presence.

19. The defence stand as revealed during the examination of the accused-a ppellant U/S 313 CrPC is animosity for asking the victim to pay the loan amount of Rs.3,000/-. There is no iota of evidence which could prima-facie establish th at the first informant had taken a loan of Rs.3,000/- from the accused. Though the prosecution witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined by the d efence counsel nothing could be elicited to dislodge the prosecution version. We do not find any reason to discard the forthright testimony of the eye witnesses and the victims of the incident, namely, PW-1 and PW-4.

20. The evidence of PW-7, I.O Md. Alimuddin Choudhury shows that on 27.4.200 1 when he was serving as ASI at Nilambazar Out Post, i/c of the O.P. Kanti Bhusa n Deb received the ejahar of this case from informant Joytun Bibi (PW-1), made a GD Entry No.520 dated 27.4.2002, thereon and sent the same to Karimganj P.S., f or registration of a case. He also proved Ext 2 (2) as the signature of i/c of t he OP Kanti Bhusan Deb in Ext 2 ejahar, which is known to him. PW-7 also confirm ed the claim of PW-1, the victim as well as PW-6 ejahar writer that victim was r endered helpless after her house was burnt in the incident for which she failed to file the ejehar in time. Thus, the delay in filing of the ejahar has been pro perly explained.

21. On careful evaluation of the entire evidence on record, we find that the prosecution has been able to establish the charge under Section 436 IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. We do not find any ground to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court. However, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances and further considering the fact that the ac cused is in custody for nearly six years, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met by imposing sentence up to the period which is alr eady undergone by the accused-appellant in jail custody. 22. o be detained in connection with any other case. Let the accused appellant be released forth with unless he is required t

23. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed with the above modification of sentence imposed on the accused. Send back the LCR together with the copy of th is judgment and order.