High Court · 2012

The prosecution story in brief is that on 22.01.2002, the informant Sri 3. Bhuban Gogoi lodged an FIR at Cinnamara Outpost stating therein that on 22.01.20 02 at about 6.30. P.M., the accused Manik Hatiboruah set fire to the kitchen of the informant. The house of the accused is situated adjacent to the house of the informant. After hearing hue and cry made by the informant’s elder sister, peop le gathered there who found the accused standing at the place of occurrence with a bamboo of which one end was burning. When the people asked him about the inci dent, he told them that he had set fire to the kitchen of the informant. After r eceipt of the FIR, the In-Charge of Cinnamara Police Outpost sent the same to th e Officer-in Charge, Jorhat Police Station for registering a case. Accordingly a case being Jorhat Police Station Case No.29/2002 under Section 436 IPC was regi stered.

4. After registering the case as aforesaid, the Investigating Officer (I.O. for short) started investigation. During investigation, the I.O recorded the st atements of witnesses, arrested the accused and seized the bamboo. After complet ion of investigation, the I.O. submitted charge sheet against the accused under Section 436 IPC.

5. The case being triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat to the Court of learned Session s Judge, Jorhat and subsequently the case was transferred to the Court of Additi onal Sessions Judge, (Adhoc) (Fast Track Court) Jorhat. On the basis of the mate rials on record, the learned trial Court framed charges against the accused appe llant under Section 436 IPC. The charge being read over and explained to the acc used person, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During trial, prosecution examined 8 (eight) witnesses including the I.O . The defence adduced no witness and took the plea of complete denial. The accus ed appellant while examining under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied his involvement i n the incident.

7. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and materials av ailable on record, the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment convicti ng and sentencing the accused appellant as indicated hereinabove. Hence this app eal.

8. Admittedly, there is no eye witness in the case. The learned trial Court has convicted the accused appellant on the basis of the extra judicial confessi on made by the accused before PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 as well as circumstantia l evidence. After scrutiny of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court ca me to the conclusion that PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 had seen the accused standing at the place of occurrence with a long bamboo of which one end was burning. After thei r arrival the accused person fled away from the place of occurrence throwing the bamboo, which was later on seized by Police vide Ext. 2 seizure list. Ext. 2 wa s identified by the witnesses in the Court which was marked as material Ext. 1.

9. The learned trial Court thus held that the prosecution was able to prove with cogent and reliable witnesses on which the prosecution has relied, unerrin gly pointing to the guilt of the accused person that it was the accused only who committed the offence under Section 436 IPC and further, found that the prosecu tion was able to establish a chain of circumstances that it was the accused who set on fire the kitchen of the informant. Accordingly the accused was convicted and sentenced vide the impugned judgment and order.

10. The learned trial Court has convicted the accused appellant on the basis of the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4. Therefore, let us discuss, evaluate and a ppreciate the testimonies of PWs 1, 2, 3, and 4.

11. PW-1, Sri Bhuban Gogoi, is the informant. He deposed that house of the a ccused person is situated adjacent to his house. He further deposed that on 22.0 1.2002 at about 6.30 P.M., while he was at his home, he heard the hue and cry ma de by his elder sister shouting (cid:28)Gharat Jui Lagiche, Gharat Jui Lagiche (cid:29) ( (cid:28)the h ouse is burning (cid:29), (cid:28)the house is burning (cid:29)). Hearing that he went to the place of occurrence along with Pranjal and Dipak. He saw that accused Manik was standing there with a long Bamboo burning at one end. The thatched roof of their kitchen was burnt down. Subsequently, fire was controlled by pouring water. He lodged t he FIR (Ext.1) wherein Ext.1 (1) is his signature. During investigation the I.O. seized the bamboo vide Ext.2 seizure list and Ext.2(1) is his signature. During cross examination, PW-1 stated that their house is situated adjac ent to the house of the accused. He has further stated that he had no knowledge how the ’chali’ of the kitchen caught fire. He admitted that the roof of the ’ch ali’ was made up of straw. The other suggestions put to him had been denied.

12. PW-2, Smti Minu Gogoi is the elder sister of the informant. She deposed that on 22.01.2002 at about 6.30. P.M., while she was tutoring her daughter, her mother Koli Gogoi was working in the kitchen. After hearing the hue and cry of her mother, PW-2 went there and saw that the kitchen was burning. She saw the ac cused Manik near the kitchen with a long bamboo in his hand. One end of the bamb oo was burning at that time. When she called her brother, her brother came out a long with Dipak and others. Accused person told them that he set fire to the kit chen. When people came to the place of occurrence, the accused fled away by thro wing the bamboo. During cross examination, PW-2 has stated that at the time of occurrence , she was at home. She admitted that she did not see how the fire caught their k itchen. She further admitted that house of Manik is situated adjacent to their h ouse. She did not know who set fire to the kitchen.

13. PW-3, Sri Pradip Gogoi deposed that accused is known to him. On 22.01.20 02 at about 6.30 P.M., the occurrence took place. At that time he was enjoying T V at the house of Nabin Gogoi. After hearing hue and cry he came out from Nabin’ s house and went to the place of occurrence along with Dipak and Pranjal. They s aw that accused Manik was standing in the place of occurrence with a long bamboo , one end of which was burning. When they asked the accused, he told them that h e had set fire to the kitchen and after throwing the bamboo, he fled away. Polic e came to the place of occurrence and seized the bamboo vide Ext.2, seizure list , wherein Ext.2(2) is the signature. Material Ext.1 is the seized bamboo. The ac cused was present at the time of seizure and he put his signature thereon. Ext.2 (3) is the signature of the accused person. During cross examination, PW-3 admitted that he did not see how the fire took place in the kitchen of the informant. He denied that accused Manik did no t confess before them that he set fire to the kitchen of the informant and that the Police assaulted the accused and after that the accused confessed that he ha d set fire to the kitchen.

14. PW-4, Sri Dipak Gogoi has stated that on 22.01.2003 at about 6.30 P.M., the occurrence took place. At that time he was enjoying TV at his home. He heard that house of Bhuban Gogoi caught fire. Then he went to the place of occurrence and saw that the ’chali’ of the informant’s kitchen was burnt down. He found ac cused Manik standing at the place of occurrence with a long bamboo in his hand o ne end of which was burning. The accused fled away from the place of occurrence. During cross examination, PW 4 has admitted that he went to the place of occurrence after the kitchen was set on fire. He did not know who set fire to t he kitchen of the informant.

15. The evidence of PWs 5, 6 and 7 are exactly on same tune with that of the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3, and 4, and therefore, the evidence adduced by these wi tnesses are not separately discussed. PW-8, Sri Debeswar Gogoi is the I.O. of the case. He deposed that on 22. 16. 01.2002, he was serving as I/C of Cinnamara Police Outpost under Jorhat Police S tation. On that day, at about 6.40. P.M., he received a telephonic call from one Sri Upen Gogoi that Bhuban Gogoi’s house is burning. He immediately informed th e matter to the fire brigade. He also informed Jorhat Police Station for providi ng special mobile party. Then he went to the place of occurrence and found that fire was already controlled by the people gathered there. He interrogated the wi tnesses and from their statement it was revealed that accused Manik Hatiboruah s et fire to the kitchen of the informant. He found a long bamboo lying at the pla ce of occurrence, one end of which was burning. PW-8 seized the same vide Ext. 2 seizure list. The accused was present at the time of seizure. Ext.2(3) is the s ignature of the accused. He apprehended the accused and brought him to the Polic e outpost. When he received a written Ejahar, he made a GD Entry being No. 413 d ated 22.01.2002 and sent the same to the Officer-In Charge, Jorhat Police Statio n for registering a case. On 23.01.2002, he again visited the place of occurrenc e, prepared a sketch map vide Ext.3 wherein Ext.3(1) is his signature. After com pletion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the accused under Se ction 436 IPC. Ext.4 is the charge sheet and Ext. 4(1) is his signature. During cross examination, PW-8 stated that house of accused and informan t are situated adjacent to each other. An earthen ’dhaap’ is situated on the bou ndary of both the parties and house of Bhuban (informant) is situated nearer to that ’dhaap’. Section 436 IPC being relevant is quoted hereinbelow;-

17. (cid:28)436. Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc. - Whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance, intending to caus e, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, the destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment f or life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. (cid:29) The points requiring proof to convict an accused under Section 436 IPC a re; (cid:28)1. 2. explosive substance; that the accused committed mischief; that the said mischief was committed by fire or an

3. 4. that it destroyed or damaged a building; that such building was used either as- (a) place of worship; (b) human dwelling; or (c) place for the custody of property. (cid:29)

18. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted t hat the learned trial Court committed grave error of law as well as facts in int erpreting and analyzing Section 436 IPC in the light of evidence on record, inas much as, there is no eye witness of the incident and all the prosecution witness es are interested witnesses. Moreover, the learned trial Court did not consider the evidence of PW-7 who categorically deposed that the accused appellant was no t present at the place of occurrence.

19. Mr. Mahanta has, bringing to the notice of the Court the language used i n the definition of Section 436, has submitted that the chali which was burnt wa s neither a (cid:28)building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a hum an dwelling or as a place for the custody of property (cid:29). The first informant alon gwith other PWs have categorically stated that the accused had set on fire the c hali of the kitchen, which was admittedly made up of straws. Mr. Mahanta submitt ed that chali is even not a (cid:28)kitchen (cid:29). In the villages of Assam, chali is genera lly attached to the kitchen for preparation of tea or to boil water. In a catena of decisions, the Apex Court as well as various High Courts have held that the word (cid:28)building (cid:29) connotes something which is exclusively used for human habitatio n of a person or group of persons including family as the dominant intention of the legislature was to give protection to those buildings which are used as huma n dwellings or as places where properties are stored. Therefore, it is absolutel y necessary to prove that the building which the accused destroyed come within o ne of the three classes mentioned in the Section. Hence, chali does not come und er the definition of Section 436 IPC.

20. Mr. Mahanta has further submitted that the learned trial Court erroneous ly considered the statements of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 regarding extra judicial confe ssion of the accused appellant made before them while convicting the accused app ellant under Section 436 IPC, inasmuch as, it is settled principle of law that c onfession made during the time of investigation is not admissible evidence under Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. In this connection, Mr. Mahanta has placed reliance on the decisio n of (2005) 11 SCC 600 (State (NCT) of Delhi -vs- Navjot Sandhu.) Another import ant factor, the learned trial Court did not take into consideration while convic ting the accused appellant on the basis of the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 is that the house of the accused appellant is only 10 feet away from the house of t he informant. No reasonable person would set on fire his neighbour’s house which may also damage his own house. Mr. Mahanta, thus, submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused appellant under Section 436 IPC and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside and t he accused appellant be acquitted of the charge so framed against him.

21. Regarding convicting the accused upon taking into consideration the circ umstantial evidence, Mr. Mahanta has submitted that to convict an accused mainly on circumstantial evidence, prosecution must invariably establish the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused, whereas in the instant case, the prosecution has failed to maintain the chain of circumstances. To substantia te his argument Mr. Mahanta has placed reliance on the decision in (2011) 2 SCC 12 (Abubucker Siddique and Another -vs- State).

22. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in support of h is submission has further placed reliance on the decision in State of Rajasthan Vs. Vishan Singh reported in 1997 Criminal Law Journal 1443. In Vishan Singh (supra), the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in a similar case found the evidence of main eye witness not reliable who deposed th at the accused was standing in the scene of occurrence after setting fire. The C ourt further observed that possibility of false implication of accused due to di spute between the parties cannot be ruled out and acquitted the accused.

23. Per contra, Mr. Munir, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitte d that the learned trial Court has convicted the accused appellant on the basis of the cogent and reliable evidence of prosecution witnesses. Hence the convicti on and sentence so passed may not be interfered with in this appeal.

24. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned coun sel appearing for the parties. Also considered the materials available on record including the evidence adduced by prosecution witnesses. In my opinion, the ev idence of PWs 1, 2, 3, and 4 in so far as it implicates the appellant is not wor thy of reliance. The PWs 1, 2, 3, and 4 had stated that the accused appellant af ter setting fire to the kitchen (chali) of the informant was standing in the sce ne of occurrence with the bamboo stick in his hand, one end of which was burning . It is inconceivable that the accused person would continue to stand at the pla ce of occurrence after setting fire to the kitchen of the informant, moreover, b oth the informant and the accused are related and the houses are adjacent to eac h other. More so, admittedly there is only 10 feet gap between the house of the informant and the accused appellant. The house of the accused also is a thatched house and it is unbelievable that a person would set fire to the house of his n eighbour with the risk that his own house may catch fire from the burning house.

25. The plea taken by the accused appellant that the accused was selected fo r a Government job, but there was no Government job holder in the family of the informant’s side and to harass the accused he had been falsely implicated in the case cannot be discarded.

26. In the present case in hand, the evidence of PWs-1, 2, 3 and 4 are found not reliable. As held in Vishan Singh (supra), when the evidence of eye witness es are not found to be reliable, the conviction on the basis of such witness is liable to be set aside. More so, when we discard the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3, an d 4, we find that there are no other materials to bring home the charge against the accused appellant.

27. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The impugned order of conviction and sentence is set aside and the accused appellant is acquitted of the charge. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused appellant is on bail, it is, therefore, ordered that the bail bond furnished by the accus ed appellant shall stand discharged.

28. Send down the Lower Court record.