JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 29.04.2005 and order of sentence dated 30.04.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 244 of 2001 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 156 of 2000, arising out of Muffasil P.S. Case No. 35 of 2000, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under sections 448/427, 436 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years for the offence punishable u/s 436 of IPC and RI for six months u/s 448 of IPC. Learned trial court has also imposed sentence of fine upon the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Only) and in default of payment of fine he was directed to go undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months. It has further been ordered by Learned Trial court that out of a fine a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) shall be paid to the informant Bhani Tanti by way of compensation for the damage to her properties consequent loss suffered by her. The learned trial court did not impose sentence for the offence punishable under section 427 of the IPC.

2. The prosecution case was arose on the basis of written report of Mosomat Bhani Tanti lodged at the Muffasil Police station on 20.05.2000, according to the written report the case of the prosecution was that the informant was a widow and used to earn her livelihood by selling vegetables. On 19.05.2000 at about 3.00 pm while she was sitting in the company of her next door neighbour Laxmi Devi, the accused Bijay Singh Banra came to her house and entered into her house after breaking/ open the door. He damaged the utensils, boxes, clothes and food items kept inside the house and began to throw the articles out of the house. He thereafter set fire to the door of her house and to the clothes along with the box in which the clothes were kept and also took away Rs.4000/- besides two vessels which was kept in the box.

3. On the basis of written report of informant Muffasil P.S. Case No. 35/2000 has been registered under sections 448, 436, 380, 427 of IPC. After investigation police submitted the charge sheet vide charge sheet No. 36/2000 on 31.05.2000 under sections 448, 436, 380, 427 of IPC and under sections 4, 5 and 6 of Prevention of Witch (DAAIN) Practice Act. After taking cognizance the case was committed to the court of Sessions. On 23rd September 2002 learned Sessions Judge, Singhbhum West framed the charge under sections 448, 436, 380, 427 of IPC and under sections 4, 5 and 6 of Prevention of Witch (DAAIN) Practice Act. The learned trial court after conducting the trial passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is under challenge in this appeal.

4. Heard Mr. P.K. Sahay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assisted by Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State.

Arguments on behalf of the learned Counsel for the appellant

5. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned trial court has committed error in the appreciation of the evidences and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law as well as on fact. In view of the fact that there is only one eye witness in this case who is the informant and there are inconsistencies in her statement also. It has further been pointed out that one FIR named witness Laxmi Devi examined on behalf of the prosecution has been declared hostile and she has not supported the case of the prosecution. Further, it has also been contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive of the appellant in connection with the alleged offence. Further, the learned trial court has also failed to appreciate the evidence which has been produced to substantiate the case of the prosecution because no material has been brought on record. Further, it has also been pointed out that no fire means like match box etc. was found from the plac