Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Sukar Manjhi @ Sukra Manjhi S/o Badri Manjhi – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. I have already heard the arguments advanced by Mrs. Chandana Kumari, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Addl. P.P. and Spl. P.P. appearing for the State.
2. This instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14/16.08.2007 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in S.T. No.195 of 2006 whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Section 436 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years.
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 22.01.2006 at about 07:00 a.m., Sanchan Manjhi and Sukar Manjhi were allegedly imbedding pole on the land of their nephew (Bhagina) Chetan Manjhi. Upon objection raised by the informant Bhutu Manjhi, they started a commotion and Ramu Manjhi and Militri Manjhi came to the place of occurrence with lathis in their hands. All the accused persons climbed on the roof of the house and Ramu Manjhi lit fire on the roof and Sanchan Manjhi set fire to the straw Punj. The villagers assembled after the occurrence, but the ho
The conviction under Section 436 of the IPC was set aside due to insufficient evidence proving the intent and dwelling status of the property at issue.
A cognizance of an offence under IPC requires clear evidence of commission; mere speculative involvement or prevention of extinguishing fire does not constitute the requisite elements of the offence.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and conflicting evidence, including testimonies from interested witnesses, undermines convictions.
For conviction under Section 436 IPC, prosecution must prove intent to destroy a dwelling; insufficient evidence leads to modification of conviction to Section 435 IPC for mischief by fire.
Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc - S. 436 RPC, it is clear that mischief, if committed in reference to a place of worship or a place of home dwelling or a pla....
Point of Law – Acquittal - In case of Sections 300 and 436 of IPC, evidence of prosecution witnesses are not free from reasonable doubt.
The conviction for arson was overturned due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies, granting the appellant the benefit of doubt.
The main legal point established is that the prosecution must prove the alleged occurrence beyond reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused in case of doubts raised by....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
