POOLICE HEMBRAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the instance of the appellants is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 17-2-1999 and 19-2-1999 respectively passed in Sessions Case No. 106 of 1997/ 137 of 1998 by Shri Mungeshwar Sahoo, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gooda whereby and whereunder they were found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 436/ 34 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and they were convicted and appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo R. I. for five years for the offence under Sections 436/34 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant Nos. 3 and 4 were released on due admonition. However, no separate sentence was awarded to appellant Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. Co-accused Dukhan Ansari was not found guilty of the charges aforesaid and he was acquitted.

(2.) The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the written report (Ext 1) of P.W. 6 Karmi Hembram, the informant, lodged before Pathargama P. S. on 29-3-1997 at 16.30 hours regarding an ocurrence which is said to have taken place on that very day at 13.00 hours in village Rupchak, P. S. Pathargama, District Godda in which her house is said to have been set on fire allegedly by the appellants. A case was instituted against the appellants by drawing of a formal F.I.R. on that very day at 16.30 hours. The formal F.I.R. and the written report of the Informant was received on 31-3-1997 in the Court empowered to take cognizance.

(3.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant had returned to her house from her field after harvesting of the wheat crop and she was in her house washing her hand and mouth and she heard the rattling sound at her door and she came near her door and saw appellants Poolice Hembram and Hakim Hembram breaking the door of her house and on her protest they abused her and on further protest all the appellants entered into her house and they removed two mounds of rice, 2 mounds of paddy, 28 bundles of wheat crop besides utensils and clothes all worth Rs. 5,000/- from there. It is alleged that, thereafter, appellant Poolice Hembramat the instigation of appellant Hakim Hembram set fire to her house as a result of which her house was burnt. On alarms her son P.W. 1, Gopinath Marandi, P.W. 3 Vilash Tudu, Sardar Tudu, Chamun Moraiya, Ganesh and others came there who had witnessed the occurrence. The prosecution case further is that she is in cultivating possession of plot No. 15 having an area of 3 bigha, 15 katha 11 dhoor in respect of which there has been a decree of competent Civil Court also and the appellants intend to forcefully dispossess her from the said land and they also vex and harass her so that she may leave her hearth and home and for that they have committed the occurrence in question.