- (1.) The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded against the appellants by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in S.T. No. 6 of 1996/1 of 2001 by which both the appellants were convicted under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years.
(2.) The prosecution story in short was that the informant Baleshwar Pandey (P.W. 7.) presented a written report before Kunda police station narrating interalia that in the night intervening 23.5.1994 while he with his nephew P.W. 2 Shyam Sunder Pandey was sitting on the roof of the house and both were in agony as they had cremated a close relation in the day hours, in the meantime at about 12 O'clock the informant spotted a burning object coming across his roof which fell on the roof of the hut centrally located in his court yard which inflamed the hut instantaneously. The informant then immediately turned back from which direction the burning object came and he witnessed the appellants fleeing towards their house who could be identified in the light of bulb as also in the moon light. On the alarm there being raised by the informant and his nephew the villagers assembled and assisted in extinguishing the fire that had engulfed the hut. The occurrence was witnessed by Muktinath Pandey (P.W. 3) and others who claimed to have seen the appellants running away from the place of occurrence. The informant thereby sustained loss on account of burning of cloths worth Rs. 1500/- which were kept inside the hut. The informant alleged that the appellants had committed mischief by causing fire in his house. The criminal law was set in motion on the basis of the written report of the informant by registration of Mohanpur (Kunda)P.S. Case No. 59 of 1994 on 23.5.1994 for the alleged offence under Sections 436/427 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation charge sheet was submitted only under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code against them. The appellants were put on trial for the charge under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code, as they had pleaded not guilty.
(3.) The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants assailed the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial judge on the ground that the written report was presented before the police station after about 24 hours of the alleged occurrence after due deliberation and consultation though the police station was situated only at the distance of 3 k.m. from the alleged place of occurrence and that no explanation was accorded for such inordinate delay, as such, it could be inferred that the appellants with whom the informant was on inimical terms having long litigation at the Deoghar courts were implicated falsely and maliciously and the learned trial judge without appreciation of this aspect convicted the appellants mechanically.;