SUBHLAL GOPE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 6th June. 1965 Gangiya Gwalin lodged first information report against seven accused persons including the two petitioners alleging that in the previous night all of them variously armed had been to her house and on the order of petitioner Budhlal Gope, petitioner Subhlal Gope set fire to the house, as a result of which she sustained a loss to the extent of Rs. 2,000/-. After Investigation, police submitted a final report that the case was false. On 5th June, 1965 Gangiya Gwalin filed a complaint petition before the Sub-divisional Magistrate making further allegations that when she wanted to come out of her house, it was chained from outside and that as a result of the fire her infant daughter was partly burnt, which subsequently resulted in her death. In her complaint petition Gangiya Gwalin made allegations against the conduct of the Sub-Inspector of Police. The Sub-divisional Magistrate directed a judicial inquiry into the matter. On receipt of the report of inquiry, he took cognizance in the case against all the seven accused persons. One of the accused, namely, Chaturi Gope died during the pendency of the case. The case was transferred to Shri S.K. P. Singh, Munsif Magistrate, Gaya, for disposal. That Magistrate in absence of the complainant and her witnesses discharged the accused persons on 25-2-1966 under Section 209(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code). It appears that subsequently on 1-4-1966 the learned Magistrate reviewed that order and proceeded with the commitment inquiry under chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These two petitioners along with four other accused persons were committed to the court of Session where the trial proceeded.

(2.) The defence was that on account of enmity, the complainant herself set fire to her house and in order to, wreak vengeance falsely implicated the accused persons.

(3.) The learned Assistant Sessions Judge found all the six accused persons guilty of offences under Section 457 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. He further found petitioner Subhlal Gope and petitioner Budhlal Gope guilty under Sections 436 and 436/109 of the Indian Penal Code respectively and convicted and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further term of three months. He further directed that the sentences against Subhlal Gope and Budhlal Gope would run concurrently. The learned Judge passed an order that the fine, if realised, would go to the complainant by way of compensation. On appeal, the Sessions Judge believed the prosecution story that it was on the order of petitioner Budhlal Gope that Subhlal Gope had set fire to the house of the complainant. Consequently the learned Judge upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed against these two petitioners. So far the remaining four accused persons were concerned, the learned Judge found that they had not taken part in the occurrence and hence he allowed the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence. Subhlal Gope and Budhlal Gope have, therefore, filed this revision application.