Jharkhand High Court

Janak Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 January, 2025

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.1111 of 2006
                                          ------
       1. Janak Mahto
       2. Kanshi Mahto        All Sons of Late Kokil Mahto
       3. Dasu mahto
       4. Nanku Mahto
       5. Bhuneshwar Mahto        Both Sons of Late Manak Mahto.
       6. Mahesh Mahto
       7. Mohi Mahto           Both Sons of Janak Mahto
       8. Somar Mahto, Son of Kanshi Mahto,
       9. Basudeo Mahato, Son of Bhinak Mahto
           All are residents of village- Bakain, P.S. Bashisth Nagar,
           District- Chatra                         ....    .... Appellant(s)
                                           Versus
          The State of Jharkhand                    .....   ....   Respondent
                                          ------
       For the Appellant(s)     : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
       For the State            : Mr. Fahad Allam ,A.P.P.
                               PRESENT
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
                                  -----
                              JUDGMENT

Dated: 08.01.2025

Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

appellants as well as Mr. Fahad Allam learned A.P.P. appearing

for the State.

2. Present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order

of conviction and sentence to the appellants dated 01.07.2006

passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court),

Page | 1 Chatra in S.T. No. 141 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the

appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections

147 and 436 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six

months for the offence under Section 147 and five years rigorous

imprisonment under Section 436 of the I.P.C.. Both sentences were

directed to run concurrently.

Factual Matrix

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that a written report

(Exhibit-P1) was filed by Mahado Prajapati (P.W.4) on 07.08.2001

stating inter alia that on 06.08.2001 at about 12:00 at night, all the

named accused persons armed with lathi, bhala and gadasa

forcibly entered into his house and after assaulting inmates,

dragged them out of the house and thereafter, on the order of

Janak Mahto, accused Kanshi Mahto poured Kerosine oil and set

fire in the house of the informant. It is further alleged that the

cause of occurrence was illegal possession of accused persons over

the land and house of the informant.

4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted.

The case was committed to court of Sessions and trial proceeded

against appellants/accused persons. After conclusion of trial,

appellants were held guilty and sentenced as stated above.

Page | 2

5. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned

judgment has submitted that initially the F.I.R. was registered in

this case as P.S. Case No. 34/01 wherein after thorough

investigation, final form was submitted by the police showing the

occurrence to be false. Thereafter, protest petition was filed by the

informant/complainant and cognizance was taken and the case

was committed to the court of Sessions and ultimately, the

appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the offences

under Sections 147/436 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further

submitted that the place of occurrence itself belong to the

appellants and it is admitted by the informant in his evidence that

there is a land dispute regarding the place of occurrence itself. It is

further submitted that the defence has also adduced evidence

showing that in respect of disputed property proceeding under

Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. was also initiated. Due to apprehension

of breach of peace on account of land dispute, a proceeding under

Section 107 of the I.P.C. was also initiated between the parties. This

is out and out a false case. The learned trial court has miserably

failed to properly appreciate the evidence of defence and the

materials elicited in the cross-examination of the informant and

Page | 3 other witnesses favouring the case of the appellants. Therefore,

conviction and sentence of appellants is absolutely illegal and

beyond the evidence available on record which is fit to be set aside

by allowing this appeal.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has

opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and

submitted that all the witnesses examined by the complainant

have fully supported the charges leveled against the appellants

and there is no material contradiction or infirmity in the cross-

examination of the witnesses to disbelieve the prosecution story.

The occurrence took place due to land dispute between the parties

at the dead of night. The learned trial court has very wisely and

aptly considered all the aspects of the case and materials available

on record in passing the impugned judgment and order which

suffers from no illegality. There is no valid reason to interference

with the impugned judgment and order by way of this appeal

which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed.

7. I have gone through the entire record of the case along with

impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of

both side.

Page | 4 It appears that initially the F.I.R. was lodged by the

informant in this case and after investigation, the case was found

to be not true and final form was submitted by the police. The

present case was initiated on the basis of protest-cum-complaint

lodged by the complainant and ultimately, the appellants were

held guilty and sentenced as stated above.

It appears from the evidence of complainant that

proceedings under Sections 107 and 144 of the Cr.P.C. were

initiated between the parties. It is also surfaced that the land under

dispute was purchased by appellant Janak Mahto. There is no

cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution showing that

the disputed property was in possession of the informant party at

the time of relevant occurrence. No burnt article has been seized

and what materials were destroyed in the burnt dwelling house

has not been brought on record. Similarly, not a single person has

sustained any kind of injuries. Therefore, it is quite obvious that

the bone of contention between the parties lies in the purchase of

disputed property by the appellant Janak Mahto (deceased). The

appellants have not been held guilty for causing any injury to any

person of the informant party and there is simple conviction for

Page | 5 the offence under Section 436 of the I.P.C. The essential ingredient

of said offence is as under:

(i) Mischief by Fire or Explosive Substance:

The primary requirement is that the act must be intentional, and it must involve the use of fire or any explosive material. Accidental fires or explosions are not covered under this section.

(ii) Intent to Destroy or Damage Property:

The offender must have the intent to destroy or damage a property. The damage must be to a building that serves specific functions such as a human dwelling, a place of worship, or a place used for the custody of property.

      Types of Properties Covered:
      Human Dwelling: Any residential structure where people live.
      Place of Worship: Religious structures like temples, mosques,
       churches, etc.
      Place for Custody of Property: Any building or warehouse where
       property or goods are stored.

8. In the instant case, the very subject matter of disputed land and

house was in possession of accused persons, as admitted in the

F.I.R. itself. No burnt articles were seized during investigation.

Moreover, after investigation of case by police, the occurrence was

found to be false. No better evidence has been led by the

prosecution during trial to sustain the conviction of appellants for

the offence under Section 436 of the I.P.C.

9. In view of the above discussions and reasons, I am of the firm view

that learned trial court has failed to properly appreciate the

evidence available on record and arrived at wrong conclusion

about the guilt of the appellants. Accordingly, this appeal is

Page | 6 allowed and impugned judgment and order of conviction and

sentence passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track

Court), Chatra in S.T. No. 141 of 2003 is hereby set aside and

appellants are acquitted from charge.